Preamble

The House met at Half past Two o'Clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL AIR FORCE

W.R.A.F. (Nylon Stockings)

Mr. Dodds: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air what allocation of nylon stockings is to be made to the members of the Women's Royal Air Force.

The Under-Secretary of State for Air (Mr. George Ward): The scale for airwomen will be two pairs. I hope that issues will begin in March.

Mr. Dodds: Does the hon. Gentleman appreciate the pleasure that this information will give to a body of women who have been disappointed time and time again? This problem, a fundamental problem to any normal woman, has caused a lot of bad feeling because the W.R.A.F. feel that the W.R.N.S. have had better treatment than they have.

Coronation Arrangements

Sir I. Fraser: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether he is now in a position to announce details of the part the Royal Air Force is to play in the Coronation celebrations.

Mr. Ward: On Coronation Day, the Royal Air Force will join with the other Services in mounting guards of honour at Buckingham Palace and Westminster Abbey; about 2,000 officers and men will march in the Coronation procession and about 5,000 will help line the route. Later in the day, aircraft will fly past in salute to Her Majesty.
The Royal Air Force will take part also in the ceremonial associated with Her Majesty's State Visits to Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales and. where

practicable, in local ceremonies and celebrations throughout the country. On 15th July, Her Majesty will review the Royal Air Force at the R.A.F. Station at Odiham in Hampshire.

Sir I. Fraser: Will the W.R.A.F. and the juniors take an appropriate place?

Mr. Ward: Yes, Sir.

Super-priority Aircraft (Cost)

Mr. Hale: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air the anticipated cost of the various bomber aeroplanes in respect of which super-priority has recently been given.

Mr. Ward: I cannot give precise figures, but I can say that the cost of the Valiant, as production gets under way, is unlikely to exceed £350.000 and that, so far as can be foreseen at present, the cost of the Victor and Vulcan. at a comparable stage, will be higher but of the same order.

Mr. Hale: Has the hon. Gentleman thought of suggesting to the Minister of Supply that at some time some public tribute should be paid to the services of my right hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. G. R. Strauss), the previous Minister of Supply, in the work that he did in producing both military and civil aircraft?—[An HON. MEMBER: "That was done yesterday."] I am very glad to hear that it was done yesterday, but it was very belated. Is it not a fact that some five or six years ago we were producing bomber aircraft at about £50.000 each, that the price has now gone up to £350,000 while durability has been reduced, and that new models are coming forward at such a speed that the cost of bomber aircraft has become an almost inconceivably high sum? When will a limit be fixed, and where will it be placed?

Mr. Ward: It is undoubtedly true that the cost of aircraft and equipment of all sorts is going up. For that reason we have had to limit very strictly the number of bombers we have ordered.

Mr. C. I. Orr-Ewing: Can my hon. Friend tell me whether the figures he has quoted, which were much lower than


those which have been reported in the Press, include the cost of embodiment loan items?

Mr. Ward: Yes, Sir, they include embodiment lone items.

Accidents

Mr. Hale: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air the numbers of instances of loss of life and of serious injury, respectively, caused to pilots and passengers in the Royal Air Force for the years ending 31st December, 1950, 1951 and 1952, respectively.

Mr. Ward: As the answer contains a number of figures, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Hale: But there are only three man figures. Can the hon. Gentleman just indicate whether it is true, as it seems from the papers, that the loss of life is steadily increasing?

—
Year ending 31st December, 1950
Year ending 31st December, 1951
Year ending 31st December, 1952


(a) Killed†


Pilots‡
—
135
188
229


Other aircrew
—
63
65
71


R.A.F. passengers§
—
25
24
16


Other passengers
—
18
14
5




241
291
321*


(b) Seriously injured


Pilots‡
—
23
58
35


Other aircrew
—
10
30
24


R.A.F. passengers§
—
13
18
8


Other passengers
—
6
7
4




52
113
71


NOTES:


* It should be noted that the total flying effort of the Royal Air Force was nearly twice as great in 1952 as in 1950.


† Includes those who died of their injuries within 30 days of the accident.


‡ Includes both first and second pilots, and both pupil and instructor on dual-control trainer aircraft.


§ Includes all R.A.F. occupants of the aircraft other than those actually engaged in its operation.

A.T.C. Units, Wolverhampton

Mr. Powell: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air the strength, in officers and cadets, respectively, of the Wolverhampton Squadron, the Boscobel Squadron and the Cosford Flight of the Air Training Corps and their respective average attendances at training parades

Mr. Ward: The main point to remember is that the total flying effort of the Royal Air Force was nearly twice as great in 1952 as in 1950, and, although I regret that these figures are higher, the actual accident rate is lower.

Mr. Stokes: Why cannot we have the figures? There are only three.

Mr. Ward: I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that are more than three.

Mr. Beswick: Can the Under-Secretary say to what extent the backward-facing seat has prevented the loss of life after accident?

Mr. Ward: I cannot give the exact figures without notice.

Mr. Beswick: Can the hon. Gentleman comment on the general principle?

Mr. Ward: Backward-facing seats have undoubtedly helped.

Following is the answer:

during 1952; how many ex-cadets of each joined the Royal Air Force in 1950, 1951 and 1952, respectively; and how much, per annum, each costs the public to maintain.

Mr. Ward: As the answer contains a number of figures, I will, with permission. circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:

No. 1045 (1st Wolverhampton) Squadron (School Unit)
No. 1047 (2nd Wolverhampton) Squadron
No.2078 (Boscobel) Squadron
No. 2224 (Albrighton)Squadron*


(A) Present strengths:


Officers and Warrant Officers
3
6
6
4


Cadets
39
35
60
28


(B) Average attendance of cadets at training parades during 1952
36
35
46
12


(C) Cadets who joined the R.A.F. in—‡


1950
Nil
3
7
Nil†


1951
1
4
5
1


1952
1
1
4
3


(D) Approximate annual cost of the squadrons in


1951–52§
£425
£600
£1,450[...]
£275


* Located at R.A.F. Station, Cosford.


† Squadron formed in May, 1950.


‡ These figures relate only to boys who joined the R.A.F. directly from the A.T.C. squadrons. They do not include those who left the A.T.C. and, after an interval of time, joined the R.A.F.


§ Includes an element to cover the general overhead costs of the Corps.


[...] Includes £750 for new hutting.

Training Schools (Closing)

Mr. Janner: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether he will reconsider his decision to close down 16 training schools for pilots and navigators, in view of the adverse effect on air training.

Mr. Ward: No, Sir. My noble Friend is satisfied that the future requirements of the Royal Air Force for pilots and navigators can be effectively met without making use of these 16 schools.

Mr. Janner: Is the Minister aware that this is not the opinion held by those who have been considering this problem outside the Air Ministry, and will he give fresh consideration to it in view of the considerable amount of feeling in the opposite direction which exists in the country?

Mr. Ward: I can assure the hon. Gentleman and the House that very careful consideration has been given to this matter in the Air Ministry and that we took this step with the greatest possible reluctance. I am certain, however, that anyone who has studied the facts which led us to take this decision will agree that it was inevitable.

Mr. Perkins: Has my hon. Friend received a second request from the British Air Line Pilots Association for discussions, and if so what answer was sent?

Mr. Ward: I understand that my noble Friend has written to B.A.L.P.A. making it quite clear that both he and myself are willing to meet them at any time to discuss problems arising out of the closing of these schools. We have had to make it clear, however, that we cannot discuss with them the question of financial compensation.

Mr. Manuel: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that pilots and navigators at those training schools for one year's service were asked to make superannuation payments, thus conveying to those men that their situations were permanent? How now is the Minister proposing to give them employment which will ensure continuity of the superannuation contributions that have been paid in the past?

Mr. Ward: The question of superannuation was one between the employer and the employee and the terms of the contracts between the civil firms and the Air Ministry are perfectly clear.

Air Commodore Harvey: Does my hon. Friend realise that the terms of contract make no allowance for pensions rights and that the onus is quite clearly on the Air Ministry?

Mr. de Freitas: Will the Minister have another look at this matter, and in looking at it will he give consideration to Kirton Lindsay which only opened last


year and in the case of which, I believe, on the statement made by the Under-Secretary last Wednesday, the contractors were led to believe that there was definitely a three years' engagement?

Mr. Ward: I can only give another assurance that we have examined the matter in all its details, and while I always keep an open mind and will consider any points which hon. Members may bring to me, I can assure them that this was not a hasty decision.

Group Captain Wilcock: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether, in view of the anxiety which has been caused to flying instructors and ground staff of volunteer reserve schools by the uncertainty of the future of volunteer reserve training, he will now give an assurance that no such schools will be closed other than those already notified.

Mr. Ward: While I appreciate the anxiety of instructors and other staff at the reserve flying schools, I regret that I am not yet in a position to make a statement about our future reserve requirements. I shall, however, deal with the matter fully in the Air Estimates debate.

Group Captain Wilcock: Is the Minister not aware that owing to the uncertainty of the future many pilots and ground crew mechanics at these schools are now seeking employment outside aviation—indeed, outside the country? Will he not now give an assurance that no further damage will be done to the training organisation of this country by closing down further schools?

Mr. Ward: I cannot accept the implication that we have damaged the training organisation of this country in any way.

Mr. Beswick: Is the Under-Secretary not aware that he has created alarm and despondency throughout the industry and that he ought at any rate to do something to stabilise the present position?

Wolverhampton Airfield (De-requisitioning)

Group Captain Wilcock: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether Her Majesty's Government will now de-requisition those municipal airfields that have been used by the volunteer reserve schools which are now to be closed down.

Mr. Ward: I hope that it will soon be possible to release Wolverhampton, which is the only municipal airfield in this category held on requisition by the Air Ministry.

Group Captain Wilcock: Is the Minister aware that the de-requisitioning of these aerodromes is a matter that is having repercussions on various municipalities and will affect rates? Will he therefore reconsider the matter?

Compassionate Leave

Mr. Beswick: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air under what regulation or instruction an airman, who suffers the loss of a parent, can be granted leave for the purpose of winding up the estate but not for other compassionate reasons; and what must be the value of the estate before leave is granted.

Mr. Ward: A confidential Air Council letter dated 17th October, 1949. The value of the estate is immaterial.

Mr. Beswick: Is not the situation quite intolerable to this House that a man can be given leave to wind up financial affairs but cannot be given leave on other compassionate grounds? Will he have this matter looked into again?

Mr. Ward: That is not quite true. It is only one of the factors which commanders-in-chief take into consideration when considering whether the compassionate grounds are strong enough for giving leave from overseas theatres.

Dr. King: Does the Minister really think that when a bereaved airman on active service applies for compassionate leave the winding-up of property has very much to do with it? What he really wants to do is to see his surviving parent, so will the Under-Secretary look again into the case that was brought to his notice recently?

Mr. Ward: Obviously if the surviving parent is in ill-health or is prostrated with grief or is alone without any other near relative, there would be strong compassionate grounds, but none of those considerations applied to that case.

Mr. Beswick: From what the Under-Secretary has said today, and what he said last week, it now appears that if there are two cases exactly similar, except


that in one case there are some financial considerations to be taken into account, he will grant leave in the second case and not in the first, and is not that against the wishes of this House?

Mr. Ward: No, Sir, the position is that the commanders-in-chief on the spot in overseas theatres have wide discretionary powers. Guidance in exercising those powers has been given to them in the form of the Air Council letter, including an appendix giving examples of the kind of cases in which these considerations should he applied. Further than that, we must leave it to the commanders-in-chief after giving them what guidance we can.

METEOROLOGICAL OFFICE (SNOW WARNINGS)

Mr. Janner: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air what arrangements exist at present under which the Meteorological Office provides highway authorities with the necessary warnings about snow and other conditions which may necessitate urgent action to put the highways into a usable condition by the use of snow ploughs or gritting; and what steps are being taken to improve these arrangements.

Mr. Ward: About 250 highway authorities take advantage of the scheme whereby the Meteorological Office will, for an annual fee of £1, give warning by telephone of the likelihood of snow. The Meteorological Office is always ready to extend this service to other highway authorities, or to make special arrangements to give them warning of other dangerous road conditions.

Mr. Janner: Is the Minister satisfied that these arrangements are sufficient, and will he take such steps as he thinks advisable to ensure that the other highway authorities make use of the services available to them?

Mr. Ward: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will bear in mind that the responsibility of the Meteorological Office of my Department is confined to making available the information which is required and that its use is up to local authorities themselves to decide.

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL AVIATION

Helicopter Stations (Sites)

Mr. Dodds: asked the Minister of Civil Aviation if reconsideration will be given to the erection of a helidrome over the railway track leading into Charing Cross station for use as a helicopter passenger station; and whether he will also give consideration to a new set of plans submitted by the hon. Member for Dartford with the necessary revisions dealing with queries raised by his predecessor when plans were submitted in July, 1951.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: asked the Minister of Civil Aviation what further consideration has been given to constructing a landing stage for helicopters over Charing Cross station.

The Minister of Civil Aviation (Mr. Alan Lennox-Boyd): I have considered with interest the plans placed in the Library by the hon. Member for Dartford (Mr. Dodds). Elevated sites such as that proposed over Charing Cross station may be found to be efficient and economical airstops of the future. But at present not enough is known of the performance of multi-engined helicopters, and the areas they require, to warrant detailed planning of particular elevated sites.

Mr. Dodds: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if it is a fact that his Ministry asked local authorities in large cities some considerable time ago to allocate sites in the centre of the cities for this purpose? If that is so, does he not appreciate that the vital decision that must be taken, and soon, not only on behalf of the local authorities but for the development of helicopters in peace and war, is a site in central London, because all depends on that?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: There are three other Questions which I shall answer shortly, concerning the need for a helicopter station sited in central London. The Question of the hon. and gallant Member for Brixton (Lieut.-Colonel Lipton) related to a particular form of station, and it was that Question which I was answering.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Is it not clear from the original answer of the right hon. Gentleman that in his view, apparently, this Charing Cross site is likely to prove


the cheapest and the least inconvenient site for a helicopter station in central London?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The hon. and gallant Gentleman had better read my answer, which certainly did not give that impression.

Mr. Nabarro: Is it not possible that a preliminary elevated stage to deal with helicopters of the type at present being flown, namely the Bristol 171 and 173, could be erected in central London and elsewhere and later extended and reinforced to take heavier types as they come along?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I am by no means ruling out such a development. All I was anxious to convey to the House was that we do not yet know enough about twin-engined helicopters to warrant detailed planning with the very great expense involved. The Bristol 173, the first twin-engined helicopter in the world to fly, to which great credit attaches, is still only being flown by the manufacturing firms concerned.

Mr. Dodds: asked the Minister of Civil Aviation which sites, other than that on the South Bank, are being considered as possible helidromes in London so that full advantage will be taken of utilising helicopters in our transport system at as early a date as possible.

Miss Burton: asked the Minister of Civil Aviation in view of the fact that the South Bank site is considered unsuitable as a helicopter passenger station, what other sites adjoining the Thames are under consideration.

Mr. Reeves: asked the Minister of Civil Aviation what progress has been made in arriving at a decision on the site in London to be used as a helicopter passenger station.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Discussions have been re-opened with the London County Council on the general question of airstops. I hope that we shall reach agreement on a temporary site in the Festival area for occasional communication flights with the small helicopters now flying. We are also exploring the possibility of earmarking a temporary site, also on the South Bank of the river, against the time when experiments start, probably in 1954, with the twin-engined

helicopters. Other available sites for permanent airstops in central London are also under examination.

Mr. Dodds: Is the Minister aware that I am raising this matter on the Adjournment on Tuesday night?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I am quite aware of that.

Mr. Speaker: I am glad to hear that.

Mr. Dodds: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I purposely worded my supplementary question so that I did not give notice that I would raise the matter. I asked if the right hon. Gentleman was aware that I would raise it on Tuesday night.

Mr. Speaker: If it is to be raised on the Adjournment we can pass on to the next Question.

Mr. Nabarro: asked the Minister of Civil Aviation what provincial sites are contemplated for helidromes as counterparts to the proposed sites in central London; and, in particular, what facilities for central city sites are proposed over or adjacent to the main railway stations in Birmingham, Liverpool and Manchester in preparation for a rapid triangular service between the centres of each of the cities with connections to central London.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation (Mr. John Profumo): As my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Teeling), was informed in reply to a Question on 22nd October last, the earmarking of sites for airstops in provincial cities is a matter for the local authorities. I understand that many local authorities, including Birmingham and Manchester, have this very much in mind, and that a number have reserved sites.

Mr. Nabarro: Is my hon. Friend aware that it is quite insufficient to go only as far as the stage of earmarking a site and that what is wanted from the principal authorities, Birmingham, Liverpool and Manchester, are plans for the erection of elevated sites? Is it not useless having that development in London unless there are complementary sites in the provinces? Will my hon. Friend urge on these local authorities the preparation of such plans?

Mr. Profumo: I do not think we can go any further than we have gone at present, because it seems quite definite that it would be wrong to go into more detail until the characteristics of multi-engined helicopters are better known.

Scottish Services

Mr. Rankin: asked the Minister of Civil Aviation for an assurance that British European Airways Corporation will be allowed an exclusive right for not less than five years to operate the Scottish air services, in order that they may be able to build up the existing services and to exploit new services.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: No, Sir. The position remains as I stated during the Civil Aviation debate on 29th October.

Mr. Rankin: In view of the fact that the right hon. Gentleman has created somewhat cloudy conditions for operations in Scotland, will be give an assurance that B.E.A. may expand confident that there will be no interference with Scottish air services?

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: Will my right hon. Friend give the greatest care to any suggestion of the kind and do his best to see that private commercial companies are encouraged in Scotland? Will he accept the assurance that that would meet with the wishes of the great majority of the people of Scotland?

Mr. Woodburn: Has the right hon. Gentleman put any stop to B.E.A. developing services in Scotland or, in the meantime while a decision is pending, are they perfectly free to go ahead with essential services?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: They are perfectly free to go ahead, and any limitations which exist at present are due to economic considerations. The uneconomic nature of some of the possible routes is due to no action of the Government. I can assure my right hon. and gallant Friend that if an opportunity arises of giving equally good or better services at less burden on the taxpayer, I shall certainly not close the door to any such negotiations.

Mr. Vane: Will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that he will not give authority for any new services between

Scotland and London without the provision of a stop in the North of England, particularly in the North-West, which is very badly served since nationalisation?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: That would be a matter for the Air Transport Advisory Council, to whom any such representations might well be made.

Temporary Air Routes (Scottish Licences)

Mr. Rankin: asked the Minister of Civil Aviation how many Scottish companies have applied for licences for temporary air routes in Great Britain.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: One, Sir.

Mr. Rankin: Is the Minister aware that his answer condemns the attitude of himself and the Government in refusing to give the assurance for B.E.A. which I asked for as there is no company in Scotland prepared to do the things which the Opposition expect them to do?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I was only answering on what has happened up to the present. Naturally this is a matter which must be settled and cannot be left open indefinitely.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Why are hon. Members opposite so nervous about B.E.A. meeting with competition?

Redbrae Control Station

Mr. Rankin: asked the Minister of Civil Aviation the nature of the changes taking place in the control station at Redbrae; and if he is aware that they may adversely affect the safety of aircraft in the Prestwick circuit.

Mr. Profumo: No such change is taking place, and therefore the second part of the Question does not arise. I would, however, draw the hon. Member's attention to the reply I gave to the Question by the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel), on 17th December last.

Mr. Rankin: I understood from that answer that certain changes were taking place at Redbrae—

Mr. Profumo: Of course they are.

Mr. Rankin: I thought that was made clear by the answer the Minister gave.


The assurance I want today is that these changes shall not affect safety conditions at Prestwick.

Mr. Profumo: I quite appreciate the sentiment of the hon. Member in this matter. What I said was that no changes were taking place in the control centre, but changes have taken place in the signal centre, and I can give the hon. Member the assurance for which he asks.

Mr. Rankin: Are we to assume then that two different control systems exist with regard to approach landings?

Mr. Profumo: No, Sir.

Mr. Manuel: Can the hon. Gentleman give an assurance that these changes taking place at Redbrae, which at least are causing a transfer of 23 of the staff, will do nothing to lessen the status of Prestwick, as there is an impression that they will create a lesser degree of safety at Prestwick than formerly?

Mr. Profumo: I think the impression to which the hon. Member refers is a false one.

Fog Dispersal, London

Air Commodore Harvey: asked the Minister of Civil Aviation what measures are being taken to combat fog at the London airports.

Mr. Profumo: As my hon. Friend will appreciate, this is a very complex problem. The following aids already exist at London Airport and Northolt: Radio and Radar Aids; High intensity lighting; Runway day markings and Runway visual range markers. In addition, the Royal Air Force Station, Manston, possess a F.I.D.O. installation. The only way to maintain air services to and from the Metropolis in conditions of severe fog is by diverting aircraft to alternate aerodromes within reasonable range of London.

Air Commodore Harvey: Is my hon. Friend aware that this has been a complex problem for a great many years and his answer does not tell me what has been done in experiments with F.I.D.O. and other means? Is he aware that, if this situation continues, in a few years' time Britain may be severely handicapped and it will be quite intolerable for business people to trade in the future?

Mr. Profumo: I am answering a Question on F.I.D.O. later on. Perhaps my hon. and gallant Friend will await my answer to that Question.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Is the hon Gentleman aware that a London fog concerns a number of Departments between whom there is a lack of co-ordination and a lack of initiative? Will he make representations to ensure that the problem is considered to be of sufficient gravity for co-ordinated action at the earliest possible moment?

Mr. Profumo: I think that the implication that there is a lack of co-ordination arises in the mind of the hon. and gallant Member as a result of the actions of his own Government; it certainly does not exist now.

Sir H. Williams: Will my hon. Friend consider the possibility of laying F.I.D.O. apparatus along the roads from Brixton to Croydon?

Mr. Shinwell: In view of the attack of the hon. Gentleman on the late Government in this matter, is he aware that there has been much more fog in this country since the Tory Government came into office?

Mr. Beswick: asked the Minister of Civil Aviation what progress has been made in the experiments and discussion on the possible installation of F.I.D.O. at London airport.

Mr. Profumo: As a result of experiments at the Royal Aircraft Establishment, Farnborough, satisfactory burners for a F.I.D.O. system have been developed. Further work, particularly on igniters, is continuing. Discussion with the airline operators has, of course, been mainly concerned with the likely economic benefits of F.I.D.O. to their operations.

Mr. Beswick: That answer is almost identical, word for word, with one which I gave in this House nearly two years ago, and apparently nothing has been done since that time. As the hon. Gentleman knows so much about co-ordination, can he get a little co-ordination with his hon. Friends behind him, as they knew all the answers to this problem two years ago?

Mr. Profumo: The hon. Member knows very well that a great deal of progress has been made, including a test which was recently carried out at Blackbushe in order to discover pilot and passenger reaction, and it was generally satisfactory. Discussions and experiments are still continuing.

Air Commodore Harvey: Is my hon. Friend aware that when the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Beswick) made his statement two years ago he was basing it on what had been done in the days of the war and the Coalition Government?

Mr. Beswick: The hon. and gallant Member is quite wrong. May I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to send him a copy of the statement which I then made? Is the Parliamentary Secretary further aware that two years ago it was demanded that a fog dispersal system should be in operation at London Airport for the winter of 1951? What is now being done about that?

Mr. Profumo: If the hon. Member wants to ask a question which relates to matters for which the Minister of Fuel and Power is responsible, he must put a Question down to my right hon. Friend. I hesitate to answer for him.

Accidents (Public Statements)

Air Commodore Harvey: asked the Minister of Civil Aviation if he will make regulations to ensure that, in future, no statement on air accidents will be made until an inquiry has been held.

Mr. Profumo: No, Sir. It may well be in the public interest that certain information should be made available at the earliest possible moment in such cases.

Air Commodore Harvey: Is my hon. Friend aware that when a Comet aircraft crashed at Rome in an attempt to take off, a high official of B.O.A.C. said it was not in any way due to the pilot? Events were subsequently proved to be quite different from that and it was contradicted. Will my hon. Friend issue a directive to the chairmen of the nationalised corporations and private operators that no unofficial statements should be made until an official inquiry has been held?

Mr. Profumo: I appreciate the point made by my hon. and gallant Friend. but I do not think it would be possible to devise regulations to prevent such statements from being made, nor would any such restrictions be compatible with the right of the subject to freedom of speech. It is, however, undesirable that statements other than purely factual ones should be made by operators and any other interested parties.

Mr. Rankin: Is the Parliamentary Secretary not aware that as a result of the statement made by the chairman of B.O.A.C. the engine constructors, De Havilland, were compelled to make a statement in direct conflict with it, which appeared in the Press? Is not the making of statements prior to an inquiry by people who are interested something which the Minister ought to prevent?

Mr. Profumo: Yes, I think that statements which are made should not anticipate conclusions on matters which will need investigation.

Independent Operators (Applications)

Mr. Beswick: asked the Minister of Civil Aviation how many applications from independent operators to run air services had been submitted to the Air Transport Advisory Council under their new directive by 31st December, 1952; how many applications had been recommended for his approval; and what approvals have been given by him.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: By 31st December, 1952, the Air Transport Advisory Council had received 131 applications from independent companies to operate scheduled air services and had recommended 25 of them for approval. Of the 17 recommendations which I have now approved, five were approved by 31st December, 1952.

Mr. Beswick: Is the Minister aware that apart from the merits or demerits of these applications, it is very difficult for companies to plan their operations when there is this delay? May I ask the right hon. Gentleman to have a look into this machinery because there seems to be something wrong with it? May I also ask him where the announcements are being made as to which companies are being granted these services?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: In so far as it takes a long time for these applications to be considered by the Air Transport Advisory Council, I should like to say that many new considerations arise involving much closer examination and giving much more security of tenure to the company. I think that the A.T.A.C. have pursued their work with vigour and despatch. I know that they are always anxious to cut down any avoidable delay.
With regard to any delays which occur when their recommendations come to me, as Minister, I have now managed by today to clear 27 of the 38 recommendations which they have made. I often require to have close contact with Colonial and Dominion Governments before giving my final approval. In regard to the last question, the companies themselves are informed, and notification is sent to the public Press.

Mr. Manuel: How many internal air services in Scotland have been offered to independent companies of the taking over of which they have so far not been able to avail themselves?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: We do not go round offering services. Applications have been made and I have answered a Question on that.

Mr. Manuel: Is the Minister aware that services have been offered in Scotland to independent companies which so far have been unable to operate them.

HUNGARY (BRITISH PROPERTY)

Mr. Langford-Holt: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the amount of British property destroyed in Hungary for which the Hungarian Government have accepted responsibility; and how much has been paid.

The Minister of State (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd): I assume my hon. Friend is referring to property losses resulting from damage or injury as a result of the war or from special measures applied to such property. Under Article 26 (4) of the Peace Treaty the Hungarian Government is committed to provide in Hungary compensation in Hungarian currency to United Kingdom claimants who sustained such losses there. Three hundred and

forty-two such claims have so far been presented to the Hungarian Government through Her Majesty's Legation in Budapest. The total value of these claims according to figures supplied by the claimants is somewhat over 1,106 million forints. The Hungarians have so far failed to settle any of the outstanding claims. Her Majesty's Government have of course taken and will continue to take any suitable opportunity of pressing these claims on the Hungarian Government.

SUDAN (SELF-GOVERNMENT STATUTE)

Mr. Langford-Holt: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what progress has been made in the talks with the Egyptian Government on the question of the Sudan.

Mr. Wyatt: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to make a statement as to the present state of negotiations between Her Majesty's Government and the Egyptian Government on the future of the Sudan.

Mr. Driberg: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will make a further statement on the progress of negotiations on the future of the Sudan.

The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Anthony Eden): I have nothing at present to add to the statement I made in this House on 20th January last.

Mr. Wyatt: Is it not a fact that the only obstacle now to agreement is the question of the guarantee to Southern Sudan? Is it not also a fact that any guarantee we can secure will only extend over three years; that we cannot guarantee the rights of Southern Sudan after three years? In that case is it not rather absurd to stick on this one point when by agreement with the Egyptians on it there might be a far better atmosphere for discussions on the Canal Zone and it might lead to a sensible result in connection with the Middle East Defence Organisation?

Mr. Eden: The hon. Member will be aware from the Press this morning that there were discussions yesterday between us and the Egyptian Government, which are being continued today. I do not think


that it would really help those discussions, or the result which I feel sure the House will wish, for me to reply to a question of that kind, which I should have thought might only weaken our negotiators there.

BRITISH SERVICE MEN, UNITED STATES (STATUS)

Mr. E. Fletcher: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the detailed arrangements that have been made with the United States of America for British troops to have reciprocal treatment to that given to the American forces in this country under the Visiting Forces Act.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: I have nothing to add to the reply given by my hon. Friend to the hon. Member for Aston (Mr. Wyatt) on 26th November last.

Mr. Fletcher: Will the Minister bear in mind that when that Act was passed by the House specific assurances were given by the Home Secretary that reciprocal arrangements would be made by the United States? Can we have an assurance that the Government are doing everything possible to get those reciprocal arrangements?

Mr. Lloyd: We are in touch with the American authorities on that point. We certainly hope that reciprocal arrangements will be provided.

Mr. S. Silverman: Can the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that no Order in Council under our Visiting Forces Act will be presented to the House so as to make the Act operative in this country until satisfactory reciprocal arrangements have been made with any country affected by that Order in Council?

Mr. Lloyd: That is another question, which should not be addressed to the Foreign Office.

Oral Answers to Questions — KOREA

Civilian Prisoners

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (1) on what basis British forces in Korea share responsibilities for former prisoners of war who are now civilian internees under the United Nations in Korea;
(2) how many former prisoners of war of the opposing forces in Korea are now

civilian internees in Korea under the United Nations; where they are interned; and what are the physical conditions of their internment.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: There are now about 10,000 civilian prisoners detained in South Korea by the United Nations Command; about 9,000 of them are on Pongam Island and the remainder in a hospital camp in Pusan. As far as I am aware, they are housed in conditions similar to those of military prisoners of war. British troops have taken no part in guarding prisoners of war or civilian prisoners in Korea since the 10th July, 1952.

Mr. Hughes: Is it not a fact that the responsibility is shared by the United Nations, and if that is so, what does that responsibility involve? Does it involve health and welfare? Are doctors in attendance to report personally as to the health of the internees?

Mr. Lloyd: I think the responsibility is that of the United Nations Command.

Mr. Driberg: Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman say how many of these civilian internees were formerly listed as military prisoners of war and subsequently re-screened as civilians, and can he indicate what the basis of the re-screening was?

Mr. Lloyd: I would like notice of that question.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Can the Minister tell us if, when these men were captured, they were fighting as guerrillas and not in uniform, and whether that deprives them of their rights and amenities under international law? Can he make any further statement on that aspect of the matter?

Mr. Lloyd: I think again that I would prefer a Question to be put down on the Order Paper with regard to that matter. My impression is that in this 10,000 are people who constitute a number of different categories. Some had arms, some had not, but were officially classified as prisoners of war.

Prison Camp, Koje Island (Red Cross Delegation)

Mr. Fernyhough: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he has considered the protest of the International Committee of the Red Cross


made in May, 1952, to the United Nations Command in Korea regarding a violation of the Geneva Convention on the treatment of prisoners; and if he will place in the Library a copy of the protest together with the reply of the United Nations Commander.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: Yes, Sir. I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor (Mr. Mott-Radclyffe) on 19th December. The documents were placed in the Library last month.

Truce Talks

Sir I. Fraser: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can make any further statement on the progress and prospects of negotiations for a truce in Korea.

Mr. Eden: I have nothing to add to the reply which I gave to the right hon. and learned Member for Rowley Regis and Tipton (Mr. A. Henderson) on 21st January.

Sir I. Fraser: Would my right hon. Friend consider, and if possible re-define, what are the purposes which we have in view in joining with other Powers in this war in Korea, and what circumstances are likely to arise there should victory be attained?

Mr. Eden: I thought that at the last meeting of the U.N. General Assembly nothing could really have been clearer than the proposals put forward by the Indian delegation, with our support and that of all but the Soviet bloc, to try to bring this conflict to an end. We still stand by those proposals and we can only deplore the fact that the Communist bloc derided them.

Mr. Noel-Baker: While agreeing with what the Foreign Secretary has just said, may I ask him if he will tell the Indian Government that he will give them his support, with that of others whom he can persuade. if they will make another attempt with the Chinese Government. and if in particular they will try to clear up the misunderstanding of the Peking Government on the Prisoner of War Convention?

Mr. Eden: I think every attempt was made by the India Government, and by the United Nations, to explain the meaning of that Resolution to the Government

in Peking. But, as I have said, we are always ready to consider any other possible basis of negotiation, provided it does not infringe the essential principles which this House as a whole has endorsed.

Mr. S. Silverman: In view of what the right hon. Gentleman has just said, and while agreeing that the Indian proposals were reasonable and might well have been accepted, may I ask him if, nevertheless, he would say whether in the present situation there would be anything very dangerous in having a cease-fire now, and referring the question of the prisoners, with all other questions that arise out of an armistice, to negotiations there?

Mr. Eden: Yes, Sir. The hon. Gentleman has more than once, and perfectly reasonably, put this point to me. But I do not think Her Majesty's Government, or the Governments who have troops in Korea, would think it wise, or indeed could agree, to that suggestion for an armistice without arrangements being made about our prisoners of war. We should, I think, place our prisoners 3f war in a most dangerous position.

Mr. Silverman: But will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that in those circumstances we should still have in our hands very many more prisoners than they have in theirs? And in view of their expressed anxiety in these matters about the fate of their prisoners, may it not very well be that the dangers of such a course as I have suggested have been exaggerated?

Mr. Eden: As the hon. Gentleman will understand, there are other considerations besides that. I do not want to put it offensively, but one has to bear in mind the relative feelings we have in respect of prisoners of war in these countries, and I do not think it would be right or just to agree to an arrangement of that kind.

Oral Answers to Questions — GERMANY

Escaped War Criminals

Mr. Fernyhough: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what steps are being taken to recapture the German war criminals Hans Kühn and Wilhelm Kuppe who escaped four months ago from the British prison at Werl.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: The search for these two war criminals continues.

Mr. Fernyhough: Is the Minister of State aware that the Bonn Government gave instructions in late November that no further steps should be taken to try to recapture these war criminals? Is he aware that these men have been tried and convicted of brutal crimes committed during the war, and in view of the refusal of the Bonn Government to make any attempt to recapture them, does he not think that makes a sorry sham and a mockery of Dr. Adenauer's protest at our arrest of war criminals—or rather of Nazis—now?

Mr. Lloyd: I will make no comment on what the hon. Member has said, except to say that at the present time we are receiving co-operation from the German authorities.

Mr. Erroll: Is the Minister satisfied with the competence of the present administration of these prisons?

Mr. Lloyd: That is a different question from the one on the Order Paper.

Mr. Fernyhough: Can the Minister say when the Bonn Government again refused to co-operate in trying to recapture these men?

Mr. Lloyd: I prefer to limit myself to what I have said, that at the present time we are receiving co-operation from the German authorities.

Political Activities (H.M. Government's Powers)

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will define the powers of investigation of German political activities and arrest of German nationals reserved to Her Majesty's Government after the final ratification of the Bonn Contractual Agreements.

Mr. Eden: After the entry into force of the Bonn Conventions the position in this respect will be governed by Article 2, paragraph 1, and Article 5 of the Convention on Relations. The three Powers retain by that Convention the rights at present held or exercised by them relating to the protection of the security of Armed Forces in Germany, but the exercise of these rights will conform to the

provisions of Article 5 of the same Convention.
Action such as that recently taken by the United Kingdom High Commissioner could not be carried out by the three Powers or one of them in comparable circumstances after the Bonn Conventions enter into force. The powers of the British military authorities to take into custody German nationals will be those specified in Article 7 of the Convention on the Rights and Obligations of Foreign Forces.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: I am obliged to my right hon. Friend, but does he not consider that the description, in paragraph 2 of Article 5 to which he referred, of what constitutes a state of emergency, is a description of events of a far more momentous character than those which were the subject of Her Majesty's Government's action a fortnight ago? Does not it appear, therefore, that the Convention has been so broadly drawn as to make it almost impossible after the ratification of the Bonn Agreements to deal with these political movements in their incipient and emergent stages?

Mr. Eden: My noble Friend is right in drawing a distinction between the powers we now have and the powers we should have under the Bonn Convention. It is correct to say that the Articles which give us these powers are very complicated. Broadly, I should say that they could only be operated then in an emergency and not perhaps in a potential danger such as we are dealing with here.

Mr. Bellenger: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the powers of the German Government, to which he referred in his original answer, differ now from what they will be when the Conventions are ratified, in so far as arrests of German nationals, similar to those recently undertaken by H.M. Government, are concerned?

Mr. Eden: What is quite clear is that the powers of the German Government, and the powers of a future German Government, under their own constitution, would not be as wide as those which H.M. Government now exercise in Germany.

EUROPEAN DEFENCE COMMUNITY (BRITISH ATTITUDE)

Mr. Wyatt: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will now take the initiative with the Governments concerned to suggest that the Treaty for the European Defence Community should be re-negotiated and that Britain should join the European Defence Community, provided a suitable method of identifying Britain with the European Defence Community can be found.

Mr. Ian Harvey: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether it is now proposed that Britain should join the European Defence Community.

Mr. Eden: No, Sir. The six Governments concerned are well aware of the reasons which preclude this country from becoming a member of the European Defence Community. I am, however, glad to have this opportunity to reaffirm that Her Majesty's Government regard the early entry into force of the European Defence Treaty, signed last May, as an essential factor in strengthening the European defence effort through the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation.
In addition to their contribution to the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, Her Majesty's Government have further demonstrated their practical support of the European Defence Community by signing a Treaty of Mutual Assistance with its members, by subscribing to the Protocol to the North Atlantic Treaty and in the Tripartite Declaration of May last year.
It is also their intention to arrange for the closest possible political liaison with the institutions of the European Defence Community and military association with the European defence forces.

Mr. Wyatt: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that unless the British do now join E.D.C. it is highly unlikely that the French will ratify the agreement and the whole scheme for a European army will collapse? Even Lord Montgomery now says there is no possible military objection to the British joining this scheme, and the whole of Europe is waiting for us to give a lead in this matter. Is he aware that if we do not the scheme will collapse and that we shall have a

German national army formed in a few years' time with no possible hope of controlling it within the framework of the European army?

Mr. Eden: We do want this scheme to succeed. I do not share the views of the hon. Gentleman. I think it is still possible that it will be ratified by France and Germany. But it would be wrong for the House to suggest that it would go into the European Defence Community as at present constituted, unless at the same time we accept the object of its endeavour which is political federation in Europe. Unless this House is willing to join in political federation—which I believe it is not—we should be quite wrong to lead anybody to have false hopes in this matter.

Mr. Shinwell: While appreciating the position taken up by the right hon. Gentleman and Her Majesty's Government on this matter of associating the United Kingdom with the European Defence Community, is the right hon. Gentleman not now aware of the position taken up by the French Government in a statement recently made by M. Rene Mayer on this subject? Is it not becoming increasingly obvious that the French Government have no intention of associating themselves directly with E.D.C. until the United Kingdom decides to associate itself with E.D.C., and in view of the delay—[HON. MEMBERS: "Speech."] This is a most important matter. In view of the delay we have experienced, will the right hon. Gentleman do two things: one, place a time limit so that we should know before very long what the situation is; and, two, if there is no progress made in this direction, will he review the whole position?

Mr. Eden: It is only fair to recall that the conception of E.D.C., as the right hon. Gentleman will remember, was entirely the French Government's own proposal. There was never at that time a condition that Her Majesty's Government should belong to it, nor is there, so far as I am aware, any such condition now. If there were such a condition I do not think that it would be just or reasonable to tell Her Majesty's Government that she must acquiesce in certain arrangements when in fact we have, so far, apart from joining E.D.C., undertaken all the obligations which our Western Allies have asked us to shoulder.

Captain Duncan: Does not my right hon. Friend welcome the news on the tape that the French Cabinet have decided to proceed with this matter at once?

Mr. Eden: I should welcome it very much. I hope that it will be confirmed in due course.

Mr. Wyatt: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that M. Mayer and other leaders of French opinion have made it perfectly clear that if Britain will signify her willingness to join, they will be quite happy to re-negotiate the Treaty in such a way as to remove British objections to the federal element?

Mr. Eden: No, Sir, the statements I have seen are not that. They are that the French Government require certain additional protocols to the existing arrangements. I have not seen the suggestion that either a part or the whole arrangement should be re-negotiated. If that were suggested, obviously there would be other considerations, including Germany's position, to be taken into account, and I should deplore that.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. This is too big a matter to pursue at Question time.

ANGLO-IRANIAN OIL DISPUTE

Mr. Wyatt: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what stage has now been reached in the negotiations between Her Majesty's Government, the United States Government and the Iranian Government as to the disposal of the oil in Iran belonging to the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company.

Mr. Eden: I am not yet in a position to make a statement on the consultations which have been going on between Her Majesty's Government and the United States Government and between the Persian Prime Minister and the United States Ambassador at Tehran. I can assure the hon. Member that I will inform the House as soon as it is possible to do so.

Mr. Wyatt: In view of the somewhat flamboyant promises made by the party opposite at the last General Election, is not it about time that something were done in this matter and some oil made to flow again from Persia?

Mr. Eden: I do not know what the hon. Gentleman means by flamboyant promises. I certainly made none. I said that I hoped that, despite the existing situation, it might be possible to rescue something; but I had no confidence in the matter.

Sir H. Williams: What have the United States to do with a dispute between our Government and the Persian Government in regard to British property in Persia?

Mr. Eden: I think that I should say that the recent arrangements arrived at here in London with Mr. Byroade, had they been accepted by the Persian Government, would have been very satisfactory to Her Majesty's Government.

ICELANDIC FISHERIES DISPUTE

Miss Ward: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to make a further statement on the negotiations with Iceland on fishing rights.

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will now consider referring the Icelandic fisheries dispute to the International Court, in view of the continuing deadlock and the increasing tension developing between this country and Iceland arising from the protracted dispute.

Mr. Osborne: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to make a further statement on the Icelandic fishing dispute; and what hopes there are of an early and amicable settlement.

Mr. Eden: Her Majesty's Government have made certain proposals to the Icelandic Government in the hope of bringing about a solution of the dispute. I should prefer not to add to this statement until the reply of the Icelandic Government has been received and considered.

Miss Ward: Has my right hon. Friend any idea how long he may have to wait before he hears from the Icelandic Government?

Mr. Eden: No, Sir, but last week we made these proposals to the Government of Iceland and we must give them a reasonable opportunity to reply.

Mr. Sorensen: As this matter has now been delayed for a very long time, and as it is causing a great deal of distress and tension, would not it be better now seriously to consider referring it to the Hague Court?

Mr. Eden: I have made certain suggestions to the Icelandic Government. I would rather not make any statement until I have their answer.

Mr. Foot: Are we to understand from the right hon. Gentleman's answer that he has now taken the control of this matter out of the hands of the trawler owners' monopoly and returned it to the Foreign Office?

Mr. Eden: The hon. Gentleman can understand my reply in any way that suits him.

Mr. Younger: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is already a good deal of damage being done, especially in my constituency of Grimsby, to a very wide range of interests and that, whether this matter goes to the Court or not, it looks as if it will take a fairly long time to settle? Will he bring his influence to bear to see that in the meantime, while a decision is being reached, some of this damage is prevented?

Mr. Eden: I certainly know that this is a vexatious and troublesome problem. I think that the proposals we have made to the Icelandic Government are reasonable and fair. I hope that they will see their way to accept them. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Grimsby (Mr. Younger), with his experience of the Foreign Office, will agree that I ought to give them a reasonable time to reply before I make a further statement.

LOOTED GOLD, ROME (ARBITRATION)

Mr. Ernest Davies: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the arbitrator appointed by the International Court to advise on certain claims to gold looted by the Germans from Rome in 1943 has yet reported.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: No, Sir; but my right hon. Friend is inquiring how soon the arbitrator's decision may be expected.

Mr. Davies: Does not the Minister of State recall that last July he expressed the

hope that the arbitrator would give his decision in a few weeks, as did the Foreign Secretary in October? Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman explain the reason for this delay in settling the Corfu Channel matter?

Mr. Lloyd: The arbitration itself was concluded, but we are still awaiting a decision. We are doing what we can to get it as quickly as possible.

Mr. Davies: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman now realise the complexity of this matter, and has he convinced his colleagues of its complexity in view of the fact that in the past they were endeavouring to tell us how to settle it even by the use of force if necessary?

OVERSEAS INFORMATION SERVICES

Mr. Ernest Davies: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs when he expects to receive a report from the Committee appointed to inquire into the overseas information and broadcasting services.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: My right hon. Friend does not expect to receive the Committee's report before mid-summer. The Committee has made an extensive examination of the overseas information organisation in London. Its members are now inspecting, either individually or in small groups, information activities in various parts of the world including colonial territories. When they reassemble in London towards the end of February, their first task will be to study the considerable number of memoranda submitted to them by organisations or private individuals in this country, and to compare notes on their investigations overseas.

Mr. Davies: The Minister gave an assurance that the existing services would continue. Would he give a further assurance that, in view of the delay in issuing a report from this Committee, he will not use that as an excuse to freeze the present information services should it be desirable to increase them?

Mr. Lloyd: At the moment I will simply say that the present level of activity of the overseas information services will certainly be maintained pending consideration of this matter.

GERMANY (ARRESTED NAZIS)

The following Questions stood upon the Order Paper:

Mr. ERIC FLETCHER: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has now received further information about the activities of the seven former leading Nazis arrested in the British Zone of Germany; and if he is now in a position to say if charges are to be brought against the individuals arrested.

Mr. SHINWELL: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can now add any further information on the arrest of German nationals.

Mr. Eden: With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I would like to follow up my statement of 20th January about the recent arrests in the British Zone of Germany. I then informed the House that these arrests were made on the basis of information already available to the British authorities, which suggested that these former Nazis were plotting eventually to regain power in Western Germany and were propagating anti-Western views and policies. In my further statement of 21st January I said that the High Commissioner's first impression of the investigations still in progress was that their preliminary results tended to confirm that the activities of these men constituted a potential danger.
As I have already informed the House, it is bound to take some time to complete this investigation. The documents seized fill 30 large crates, each measuring 4 ft. by 2 ft. by 2 ft. All of these documents must be read and sorted and their significance determined. The arrested men will have to be questioned on the relevant documents, and such explanations as they may wish to give will have to be considered. The whole of this procedure will certainly take several weeks, although, of course, instructions have been given that it should be carried out as expeditiously as possible.
Meanwhile, I have now myself received and examined photostats of some of the documents. My reading of them has

satisfied me that our action in detaining these men was fully justified. It would be wrong, I think, for me to go into any detail on matters which may later have to be proved in evidence. But it is only right that I should state the reason why, in the view of Her Majesty's Government, the investigation of these matters must continue.
From the information previously available and from the documents which I have so far studied, it is clear that these men, some of whom were close to Hitler in 1945, regard it as their mission to form a mass movement based on Nazi ideology, with a view to capturing political power in Western Germany. Their leader, Naumann, has made it clear that it is his intention that the existing democratic parliamentary system should be brought to an end as soon as feasible. The group's activities are directed to this end. While content to work in secret for the present, their immediate purpose is to permeate all branches of society, and to seek by degrees to transform certain of the existing parties and organisations into National Socialist fighting groups—"Kampfgruppen" is the actual German word used. With this purpose in view, they have been planning to establish widespread contacts inside and outside Germany, and have been seeking to place their agents secretly in positions of influence.
I would, however, emphasise once again that we are dealing with long-term plans and a potential danger, which can now, I believe, be nipped in the bud. We have never considered these activities to constitute an immediate threat to the German democratic order. Nevertheless, I would remind the House that, under Allied High Commission Law No. 14, it is a punishable offence to carry out
acts or conduct in aid or support of any person, group or government hostile to the interests of the Allied forces, or intended to accomplish the reconstitution in any form whatsoever of any prohibited organisation.
In Allied High Commission Law No. 16, all National Socialist organisations and organisations of that kind are specifically designated as prohibited organisations. In the light of these facts, no one, I hope, will question the necessity for a thorough and searching investigation.
Some questions have been asked about the attitude of the German authorities. I cannot do better than remind the House


of the words of the German Federal Chancellor himself in the Bundestag on the 21st January, not widely reported in our Press here. Dr. Adenauer referred to my statement in this House to the effect that the activities of this small group of unrepentant former Nazis were not an immediate danger to the democratic order in Germany. He went on to say this:
I think that this is an apt statement. I also agree with Mr. Eden that the development cannot be ignored. The affair itself must be discussed quite openly as soon as the investigation is completed. The population of the Federal Republic and everywhere abroad can rest assured that Germany will never return to National Socialism. Traces of National Socialist thought which may, as is inevitable, come to the surface here and there will be carefully watched. As soon as there is a basis for a legal case action will be taken against them and what is more with all severity.
Those are Dr. Adenauer's words.
It has also been asked why these men were detained by the British authorities and not by the Germans. I would point out to the House that the men are held under powers vested in the High Commissioner by the Occupation Statute enabling him to detain persons for interrogation without preferring any charge. The authorities of the German Federal Republic do not possess such powers, and it would accordingly have been impossible for them to take this particular action under German law. But I fully realise that these are special powers and they must not be exercised to keep anyone in detention longer than is strictly required.
Until the present investigations have been completed, I cannot say what action will be taken in regard to these men, nor what precise charges may be brought against them in the event of their prosecution. That being so, the House will, I am sure, understand the need for restraint in discussion of this matter, pending a decision on these points and pending the outcome of any subsequent judicial proceedings, if they take place.

Mr. Fletcher: The serious statement which the Foreign Secretary has just made and the revelation of this widespread and dangerous Nazi plot show that the Foreign Secretary's action was fully justified. In view of the recent statement of the Foreign Secretary that he could not have taken this action if

the Bonn Treaties had been ratified, and in view of the fact that the basis of his action was the security of Allied Forces in Germany, will not the right hon. Gentleman now reconsider our whole attitude towards the Bonn Treaties in the interest of the security of the Allied Forces so that we can be in at least as strong a position as we are today if the Bonn Treaties, perhaps with modifications, are carried into effect?

Mr. Eden: No, Sir, I could not do that. The statements of the German Chancellor himself clearly show what his purpose and intentions are. It is quite true that I could have deferred action until the Bonn Treaties were ratified and handed over the evidence as we had it then—perhaps I could have deferred it—to the German Federal Government. They could have acted, not in the sense that I have acted, but by bringing charges. In all the circumstances, I think that as we had these special powers, it was not only our right, but our duty, to exercise them.

Mr. Fletcher: Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that even if the Bonn Treaties were ratified we should still have the duty and right to take steps to protect the security of Allied Forces in Germany?

Mr. Eden: Yes, Sir, in the event of an emergency. As I explained earlier to my noble Friend, that is in the Agreement, though the powers would not be so wide as those under which we have now acted.

Mr. H. Morrison: The House will have welcomed the statement of the right hon. Gentleman and the trouble he has taken about it. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that general public opinion—I think the House will feel as a whole—will welcome the action taken by the High Commissioner supported by Her Majesty's Government, for democracy must protect itself against any conspirators who desire to upset it? I am sure we would all express the hope that Germany, which we want to come within the democratic fraternity of nations, will at all times be ready to protect itself against conspiracies of this sort.

Mr. Eden: I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman. May I say that when making the very difficult decision


in this matter I thought that if we were to act now we should truly be helping the future democratic development of Germany.

Mr. Edelman: The Foreign Secretary said that the Naumann group had contacts abroad. Would the right hon. Gentleman say whether those contacts were with Russia, Spain, or elsewhere?

Mr. Eden: No, Sir, I cannot at the present time, as I am sure the hon. Member will realise, for the reasons I gave in my statement.

Mr. Foot: Can the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that the investigations into the contacts made by these arrested men will include an investigation into the places or people from whom they got their funds?

Mr. Eden: Certainly. We are going through these documents, and we shall follow up any information we get therefrom.

KENYA (SITUATION)

The following Questions stood upon the Order Paper:

Mr. ALPORT: To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will make a statement regarding the situation now existing in Kenya; and how far loyal elements among the Kikuyu tribe have been of assistance to the authorities in their attempts to restore law and order.

Mr. DODDS-PARKER: To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will make a further statement on the situation in Kenya; and, in view of the latest atrocity, whether he is now satisfied that the Governor has full powers and adequate resources to re-establish law and order.

The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Oliver Lyttelton): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House I will make a short statement in reply to Questions 77 and 89.
Last week four major operations were carried out by the police and military and 350 members of Mau Mau were detained. In the three Kikuyu districts there has been an increase of confidence in the Government, and a number of Home Guard units led by anti-Mau Mau chiefs

have been formed. Nearly 10,000 Kikuyu are enlisted altogether in Home Guards and resistance groups, and more Kikuyu are coming forward to take part in cleansing ceremonies. In the Nyeri district these Home Guard units dominate large areas.
There is evidence that the area under Mau Mau influence is being reduced. These developments, and the closer policing of the Kikuyu districts, have, however, driven some of the Mau Mau leaders to more desperate measures, and the danger of savage attacks by gangs may even for a time increase.
The news of the atrocious murder of Mr. and Mrs. Ruck, their small son and an African servant will have shocked the whole House, and I am sure that the House would wish to join with me in sending a message of deep sympathy to their relatives.
The House will wish to know how our plans for dealing with the emergency have been developing. On Monday, 26th January, the Governor announced the appointment of Major-General Hinde, a senior officer specially selected for this purpose who was formerly Deputy Military Governor of Berlin, to succeed Colonel Rimbault as his Personal Staff Officer for the period of the emergency.
Let me explain the duties of this officer and the Governor's powers. The powers of the Governor of Kenya are closely comparable with those of the High Commissioner in Malaya. In Malaya the High Commissioner is the supreme authority. Being a soldier he has a deputy on the civil side. Equally, in Kenya the supreme authority is the Governor and, being a civilian, he has a Military Staff Officer, who is charged with the duty of planning and controlling military and police operations. Just as General Templer's deputy on the civil side acts in his name and under his authority, so does the Military Staff Officer under Sir Evelyn Baring act in his name in the military and police sphere.
The Governor has set up an emergency Defence Council of all races to meet regularly and to advise him on emergency measures. The responsibility for the police is being transferred from the Attorney-General to the Chief Secretary, so that the former can concentrate on the other duties of his office, which have greatly increased


Under the Emergency Powers Orders-in-Council, 1939, the Governor may make such regulations as appear to him to be necessary or expedient for securing the public safety, the defence of the territory, the maintenance of public order and the suppression of mutiny, rebellion and riot and for maintaining supplies and services essential to the life of the community.
Since my last statement, a number of new regulations have been made by the Governor under these emergency powers. These include the introduction of the death penalty for the administration of the Mau Mau oath in cases where the oath contains a promise to kill. The powers which the Governor has are comprehensive, and he will continue to have my full support in exercising them.
There is, I know, in Kenya some criticism by the Europeans—understandable, for they are under great strain—of what is called "Colonial Office control," that is, with the control exercised by Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom. Since Her Majesty's Government and Parliament have the ultimate responsibility, we must retain ultimate control, but I am under no illusion that an emergency of this kind can be handled in detail by someone 7,000 miles away. I can assure the House that there has been and will be no unreasonable interference from London and no avoidable delay in dealing with those matters of policy on which consultation may prove to be necessary.
Law-abiding Europeans, Africans and Asians are living under conditions of great and daily strain and peril. The thoughts of this House are with them in their ordeal, and I am sure I am speaking for every hon. Member when I say that this House will support them in all the measures required to end terrorism and the campaign of murder and mutilation, and to restore peace and re-open the road to orderly progress.

Mr. Alport: Is my right hon. Friend aware how very greatly his statement will be welcomed, not only in this country, but in East Africa as well, and will he assure His Excellency the Governor that he has the support not only of my right hon. Friend, but, I think, of all parts of this House in putting into effect any proper and necessary measures that he

may think fit in order to safeguard the lives of people of all races in Kenya?

Mr. Lyttelton: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for what he says. It is particularly gratifying to hear such words when they come from someone so well informed on these matters.

Mr. J. Griffiths: May I join the Colonial Secretary in speaking, as I know he does, for the whole of the House and the nation, in extending sympathy to the relatives of the family who were murdered during the weekend?
I should like, if I may, to ask two questions. The first is about the new regulations on the death penalty for the oath taken by Mau Mau. May I take it that that is subject to the provision for appeal to the Supreme Court in all these cases which was provided for in the original regulations? Secondly, can the right hon. Gentleman tell us what is the composition of the Emergency Defence Council, who has been asked to serve on it and whether it is intended to work side by side with or to replace the Executive Council? May I also ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the Royal Commission has begun work and when it is intended that it should visit East Africa?

Mr. Lyttelton: I think that I can answer those questions very shortly. First, concerning powers of appeal, what I said only related to the penalty, and it is a penalty for the administration of the oath where that administration contains a condition to kill. The Emergency Defence Council has no executive function and is merely to advise the Governor. I cannot yet make a statement about its exact composition, but I understand that the numbers will be kept quite small and, as I have already said, it will represent all races. The Royal Commission is at work and has been for some time and, I believe, intends to leave for East Africa by the middle of February.

Mr. J. Hynd: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the House will welcome his assurance that we are having more co-operation from the Kikuyu and that we are accepting that co-operation? Can he assure us that those Kikuyu who are co-operating with us in suppressing Mau Mau terrorists will have adequate protection where it is possible? Can he make any statement on the protection that was given, or not


given, to chief Hinga who was murdered in the Government hospital near Nairobi after assisting the authorities?

Mr. Lyttelton: I can only say in reply that any measure that we can take to protect law-abiding Africans, as well as Asians and Europeans, will be taken; but, of course, in a widely scattered district this is difficult.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: I do not think that we can carry this any further. Mr. Bowles.

Mr. Hale: rose—

Mr. Speaker: We are getting very much behind time and I am thinking of the Committee that is to follow.

Mr. Hale: On a point of order. I came in to ask one question which I think is of importance.

Mr. Speaker: I would point out to the hon. Member—and sitting where he does he probably did not notice it—that several hon. Members rose, and there is no reason why I should pick one Member rather than another.

Mr. Bowles: Thanks to the courtesy of the hon. Member for Orpington (Sir W. Smithers) who withdrew a Question on this matter—

Mr. Hale: Further to my point of order. I was under the impression from what you said, Mr. Speaker, that you were calling my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Bowles) to ask a supplementary question of the Colonial Secretary.

Mr. Speaker: Order. We have passed that matter.

Mr. Hale: Further to that point of order. No back-bencher on this side of the House has been called to ask a single question on this extremely important statement.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member is really challenging my Ruling in this matter. I must ask him to resume his seat.

Mr. Hale: I rose to put a point of order.

Mr. Speaker: I understand that the hon. Member's question was with regard to the Kenya situation. We have passed from that and I cannot allow his question to be put.

"EMPRESS OF CANADA" (LOSS)

Mr. Bowles: Thanks to the courtesy of the hon. Member for Orpington (Sir W. Smithers), who withdrew a Question on the "Empress of Canada" which he had on the Order Paper for next week, I now ask the Minister of Transport by Private Notice, whether he has any statement to make regarding the loss of the "Empress of Canada" during the night of 25–26th January at the Gladstone Dock. Liverpool.

The Minister of Transport (Mr. Alan Lennox-Boyd): Yes, Sir. At about 4.15 last Sunday afternoon fire was discovered to have broken out in the 20,000-ton passenger liner "Empress of Canada" as she lay in the Gladstone Dock at Liverpool. On Saturday she had been moved to the dock where her annual overhaul was being completed. The fire spread rapidly to several decks and by the evening the whole of the upper structure was ablaze. Firemen from Merseyside and the surrounding districts fought the fire, on board the ship, from the quayside and from the Salvage vessel "Salvor." The burning ship gradually developed a list towards the quay and late on Sunday night all firemen had to be withdrawn from her. Fire-fighting then continued from the quay, from the roof of an adjacent warehouse, and from the "Salvor," but at about 1.30 on Monday morning the ship heeled over and sank in about fifty feet of water. There was still some fire in the ship this morning and she will almost certainly be beyond repair. Most fortunately no lives have been lost.
On Monday I ordered a preliminary inquiry to be conducted under the Merchant Shipping Acts into the circumstances of this tragic casualty. This preliminary inquiry is in progress.
The House will, I am sure, wish me to pay its tribute to all who have been concerned in the efforts to save this fine ship and to express deep sympathy with the owners in their loss. For many years she has been a link between Canada and the United Kingdom and her loss will be deeply regretted by all who have sailed in her.

Mr. Bowles: May I first thank the Minister for his reply and also associate


myself with him in his feelings and expression of sympathy with the owners of this liner? Can he tell the House whether this liner contained the usual anti-fire sprinkler apparatus which I think are quite common nowadays in modern ships? Secondly, were they working? Assuming that the liner had been equipped with them and they were working, is the Minister satisfied that they would have put out the fire? Were the bulkheads which are designed to prevent the spread of fire not closed? The fire seems to have been extraordinarily rapid and outside the control of anybody in the ship, and one wonders what would have happened if the fire had broken out at sea.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I think that most of those questions had better await the findings of the preliminary inquiry. At this stage I can say that the ship was built before sprinklers became a standard fitting in passenger ships.

Sir W. Smithers: May I add my voice of sympathy to those who suffered and may I ask the Minister whether he will set up an independent inquiry under a well-known Queen's Counsel in order that there should be no doubt that there was no sabotage connected with the destruction of this ship?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The procedure which I propose to follow is to await the findings of the preliminary inquiry and then make up my mind whether there ought to be a formal inquiry which, of course, would be a public inquiry.

Mr. K. Thompson: Is the Minister aware that the comments which he made

about those who contributed to fighting this fire will be very welcome in view of the enormous strain on those who fight fires in ships? It is an extremely hazardous job. Will my right hon. Friend also inform the House, after the inquiry has been completed, where the Liverpool fire brigade ship known as the "William Gregson" was during the fighting of this fire in the dock? At the same time, will he bear in mind that there have been three serious fires on ships in the docks in Liverpool, and will he consider whether a special inquiry should be made to find out whether there is some sinister background to those fires?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I think that all those points will be taken up by the preliminary inquiry. I must point out that it has never been the practice under any Government to publish the findings of a preliminary inquiry.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (IRON AND STEEL BILL)

Ordered.
That this day and on any subsequent day (other than a Friday) on which the Committee on the Iron and Steel Bill is the first Government Order of the Day, Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House) shall have effect with the substitution of references to half-past Ten of the clock for references to Ten of the clock:
Provided that the preceding provision of this Order shall not apply on a day on which a Motion is made under Standing Order No. 9 (Adjournment on definite matter of urgent public importance), but in that case half an hour shall be added to the period mentioned in paragraph (2) of that Order.—[Mr. Crookshank.]

Orders of the Day — IRON AND STEEL BILL

Considered in Committee.

[Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]

Clause 1.—(REPEAL OF IRON AND STEEL ACT, 1949, AND DISSOLUTION AND TRANSFER OF ASSETS ETC. OF CORPORATION.)

4.0 p.m.

Mr. G. R. Strauss: I beg to move, in page 1, line 8, after "day," to insert:
(being a day not before the expiration of a period of twelve months beginning with the passing of this Act).
Before saying anything further about this Amendment, I should be exceedingly grateful if you, Sir Charles, would allow me to explain to you and the Committee the course which the Opposition propose to take in moving and voting on this Amendment and other Amendments. If I am permitted to do that, it may save time later on. The Committee is aware that an arrangement has been come to by which we propose to try to condense our discussion on the Committee stage of this Bill to eight and a half days. We agreed to that not because we thought that this period was sufficient for this important Measure, which in our opinion will have serious effects on this great industry, but because we were threatened, as an alternative, with a Guillotine and a much shorter time.
We chose the lesser evil, but in such an arrangement, which is a kind of voluntary Guillotine, there is an underlying assumption that the Opposition shall receive the co-operation of the Government and their supporters in affording Opposition speakers a sufficient share of the limited time available to advocate effectively the points embodied in their many Amendments.
We believe that with good will it will be possible to complete a fair examination of this Bill in its Committee and Report stages in the allotted time, although in a far more cursory way than we would have liked. When I say "good will" I refer to good will in arranging the debates—not good will towards the Bill itself, because the more

we examine it, together with some of the almost incredible Amendments which have been put down recently by the Government, the worse does this Bill appear. If, therefore, the speeches and debates on our Amendments are brief; if we forgo altogether the right of moving some of our Amendments, and if we often refrain from voting on them, the Government and the country should understand that this will be solely due to limitations on our time and not because of any lack of conviction about the value and importance of our Amendments or of our detestation of the Bill as a whole.
Coming to the Amendment which I have just moved, we have put it down for two purposes. First, we want to discover what are the Government's intentions in naming the appointed day and secondly, to express our view about the need for a reasonable interval between the passage of the Bill and the naming of the appointed day. What sort of time-table does the Minister envisage? I think the House will be interested to know—and I am sure the industry will want to know—how long an interval he expects to elapse between the passage of this Bill, assuming it passes all its stages, and its being put into effect.
On the appointed day the Board which is to be set up under this Bill assumes all its responsibilities, and all the property rights, obligations and liabilities of the Agency start from that day. It is therefore clear that before the appointed day the Board and the Agency will have to be appointed, and both those bodies must come into existence and all the preparations will have to be made for them to assume their responsibilities without difficulty or friction. That means that individuals will have to be selected and approached. I assume—and I should like the view of the right hon. Gentleman on this point—that no individuals will be approached before the Bill has had its Third Reading and has received the Royal Assent.
During the passage of the Transport Bill in 1947, great indignation was aroused on the part of some Conservative Members when it was alleged that the then Minister of Transport had already approached certain individuals to sit on the Transport Commission. That was not true and it was denied; but many


Conservative Members believed it to be true and stated that it was wholly improper that anything of that sort should be done. I therefore assume that the right hon. Gentleman will not make any approaches or select any individuals to sit on either of these two bodies before this Bill receives its Third Reading.
When he has selected those individuals, they will have to be approached; terms of service will have to be fixed up, and physical arrangements made and staff engaged. The members of those bodies will have to survey the situation and familiarise themselves with all the problems, many of them day-to-day ones, with which they will have to deal. It is obvious that there must be some gap, and I should have thought it would be a gap of many months before they would be in a position to take over the obligations which will fall upon them without precipitously upsetting the apple-cart and disrupting the iron and steel industry. On those grounds there must obviously be some delay, and I should have thought that it would be a considerable one.
There is another argument for a considerable delay between the Royal Assent to this Bill and the naming of the appointed day. This is an argument which was advanced very forcibly by Conservative Members, particularly by the Front Bench of the Conservative Party, during the passage of our Bill through Parliament, when we were considering on what day the take-over of the iron and steel industry should take place. At that stage the Conservative Party, through its spokesmen on the Front Bench, advocated that there should be a very considerable delay between the passage of the Bill and the take-over of the industry by the Corporation. Later on, as I shall show in a moment, they suggested that there should be an even greater delay before the transfer of the iron and steel industry to the public took place.
When we were discussing this matter in March, 1950, in the debate on the Gracious Speech, the right hon. Gentleman who is now the Colonial Secretary moved an Amendment demanding a long delay before the Iron and Steel Act—which had been passed in the previous Parliament and had received its Third

Reading and the Royal Assent—was put into effect. He demanded an undertaking that the vesting date should be postponed until nine months after the following election, at the very earliest. That was a very long postponement when one remembers that the following election took place in October, 1951. That postponement would have worked out at 28 months altogether—two and a quarter years.
We thought that such a long postponement was unreasonable and resisted it; but he advocated it on behalf of the Conservative Party—on what grounds? It was because the party in power at that time had, in his own words, "so exiguous a majority." Is not the situation today very much the same? The Government have a very small majority indeed—slightly more than we had, but a very small one, and the political situation is exceedingly uncertain.
The right hon. Gentleman who is now Secretary of State for the Colonies, believing that it was undesirable that there should be any serious disturbance in the iron and steel industry by any action which might be reversed in a year's time if there were an election and the Conservative Party were victorious, demanded that there should be no such unnecessary and fruitless disturbance. We are in the same situation today.
Before I develop that argument further, I want to remind the Committee of the attitude of the Labour Party when there was a Labour Government, and the interval which we thought it was proper, right and decent should elapse between the passage of the Iron and Steel Bill and its date of implementation. We expected the Bill to pass in the summer of 1949 and we proposed that the earliest possible take-over date should be nine months later.
But the party opposite insisted in another place that the take-over date should be postponed until 1st July, 1951–18 months after the passage of the Third Reading which eventually took place, not in the summer of 1949 but in November, 1949. They demanded that there should be a gap of 18 months before the Bill should be implemented after its Third Reading. In fact, we did not accept that suggestion in full. We compromised with 1st January, and in effect made a gap of 13 months between the


passage of the Bill through Parliament and the Royal Assent, and the date of its implementation.
So the party opposite demanded that there should be an interval in one case of 18 months and in another case of two and a quarter years. We think that the period which they demanded for consideration and preparation of the matter was too long. We are asking for a period of 12 months only. We say, however, that the right hon. Gentleman who is now Secretary of State for the Colonies, and who was at that time speaking for the whole of the Conservative Party when he made that demand and put forward those arguments, was either making a bad case and talking nonsense—the Government must decide—or he was talking sense and putting forward serious and worth-while arguments in which the Conservative Party believes, in which case they must concede our case today and accept this Amendment.
I should like also to point out that the situation today is very different from that on the day when this Bill was introduced. This Bill was introduced on the assumption—we heard this in a number of speeches, including speeches by the Minister of Supply and the Chancellor of the Exchequer—that this was a Bill which was likely to be a compromise and which would not be vehemently opposed by the Labour Party, that we would not regard it as such a bad Bill and think it necessary to reverse it at the first possible opportunity. In those circumstances, it was reasonable to suggest that here was a Bill which, as it was not going to be upset, the Government should put it into effect by general agreement at an early date.
It has been made abundantly clear to the Government and to the country that, in our view, this Bill violates all the principles for which we stand. It removes this basic industry from effective Parliamentary and public control, and it makes the search for private profit rather than the public interest the main dynamic of the industry. We are determined to reverse this Bill and the consequences which may flow from it at the first possible opportunity. Surely in these new circumstances it would be far wiser for the Government, in the interests of the steel industry itself, to wait a little bit.
We suggest 12 months. That is a period nothing like as long as the Conservatives suggested in similar circumstances. We suggest that we should wait a bit and see what the political climate may be at that time. There may be—we do not know—an election by then. There may be one pending. If there is an election, in our opinion there is a probability and almost a certainty—hon. Members opposite may have a different opinion—that there will be a different Government when the election is over. We must all agree that there is a possibility that that will happen, even if the party opposite will not go as far as I do in that matter.
4.15 p.m.
If that should happen—it is a possibility which must be accepted—it means that this Bill will be reversed. The whole thing will have to be reconsidered, including the structure established under it, and the many transactions which will have taken place under this Bill will have to be reversed. Nothing but unfortunate and evil consequences will flow to those who have bought the steel concerns, if any are found to buy them. Of course, evil consequences will flow to the industry itself by this temporary transfer of some of its plants from public to private ownership. The structure under which the industry is today working exceedingly well will have been damaged, and all sorts of disturbance and unfortunate and had consequences will have taken place.
If the Minister of Supply were able to say, "It is really urgent that something should be done about the steel industry; it is suffering, it is being damaged because of the present set-up under nationalisation, and some remedy must quickly be found for faults which reveal themselves," there might be some case for saying that we must have some early action and make the change-over in a few months' time. But the Committee know perfectly well that the Minister of Supply has not said that, because he is not able to say it. He has not been able to expose or suggest one single point where the industry is suffering today under the nationalisation set-up.
Indeed, the Committee and the country know that today the industry, so far from being in a bad way, is in a very good


way. Its output is high and it is rising. It is making money; it is making larger profits than ever before in its history. Therefore, no possible case could be made for any urgency in this matter. So we say to the Government, "For Heaven's sake do not rush in and disturb this industry which is doing so well, or even disturb a part of it in a hurry. Let well alone for the time being."
If the Government are determined, as we know they are, to make this transfer from public to private ownership, they are the Government of the day, and it is right that they should make their decisions on matters of public policy and take the consequences. But we are entitled to say to them that, having taken that decision which to us is a most regrettable one, it is reasonable on all grounds that they should take their time, that they should take a reasonable time on both technical and organisational grounds as well as on the other grounds which I have developed, before they make this transfer effective.
We are suggesting a time which is much less than was suggested in similar, indeed almost identical circumstances by the Conservative Party when they were in opposition. We ask them to avoid making fundamental changes in this basic industry upon which so much of our prosperity depends—fundamental changes which they and everybody else know perfectly well may be repealed a few months later if such changes are made during the next year.
I say to the right hon. Gentleman and his supporters: "Follow the advice of your leaders when they spoke for your party two years' ago, in 1950, when they advocated a reasonable interval before the change took place. Follow their advice today." We do not ask them to follow the advice to the length they went, because we think they were unreasonable in demanding a delay of two and a quarter years between the Royal Assent and the transfer of the property, but we do say that it is right and proper, and, for the reasons I have given. wholly desirable, that there should be a reasonable period. We suggest the period of 12 months which is in the Amendment; and in the hope, but not in great confidence, that this Amendment will be accepted by the Government, I commend it to the Committee.

Colonel C. G. Lancaster: I listened to the right hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. G. R. Strauss) with considerable interest. He made what I thought was a very persuasive case for some delay in the selection of the appointed day and he called in aid a number of points which seemed almost indisputable.
We always look upon the party opposite as much more adept in matters of nationalisation than we can be ourselves, and in considering whether the Government have made a good case I must cast my mind back to a similar occasion when I found myself making very much the same speech as that made today by the right hon. Member for Vauxhall—although I made it far less eloquently—in connection with the vesting day for the coal industry. Here again, we were faced with a decision as to how the vesting day should be decided, and something of the same circumstances arose.

Mr. G. R. Mitchison: The Conservatives were not seeking to repeal that Bill.

Colonel Lancaster: The right hon. Gentleman claims that we have had a very good year in the steel industry. It so happens that 1946 was, with one exception, the best we have had in the coal industry since the war. We were not doing so badly. We said, "Be sensible about this. Give some reasonable delay, in this case only a matter of a few months." We felt that enthusiasm for nationalisation was not a continuing process and that if we were to get the best effect we should select vesting day at a time when we could most appropriately hand over the industry in most suitable circumstances.
What was the answer given by the then Government? They gave six weeks—six weeks for a far larger industry, a far more involved, far more intricate, industry, containing far more men, far more management. They gave six weeks for the handing over of that great industry. We heard the right hon. Gentleman say that there would have to be consultation with the people to be appointed to take up managerial posts in the new circumstances—and that, of course, takes time. How much time was allowed in the case of the coal industry?


Perhaps I may give one personal experience. My staff were destined to take over rather more than a quarter of the production of coal in this country. Within a period of six weeks every one of those appointments had been made. For a large number of years I had been in charge of that staff, but not a single question was put to me about their abilities, about where they might be placed or where they would give the best value to the nation. Nothing of that sort was done. I am not asking that we should repeat that sort of error, but at least we have the right to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, in the light of his experience, he has come to the conclusion that that procedure is absurd.
If these decisions are to be made, time is needed. There must be a reasonable interval in which decisions of a far-reaching nature are made. I do not know what is in the Minister's mind. Certainly my sympathy goes towards a reasonable period of delay; it may be less than 12 months, but I do not know. I hope we shall have no repetition of what occurred some six years ago, and I, and no doubt many others, would like to hear the right hon. Member for Vauxhall say that, in the light of their experience, his party recognise that what was done on that occasion was both inimical to the industry and a very foolish action.

Mr. Raymond Gower: I want to underline one or two of the things said by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for South Fylde (Colonel Lancaster). The right hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. G. R. Strauss) stressed the fact that a number of things will have to be done. First, he said, the Board will have to be appointed, the Agency will have to be appointed, individuals will have to be found and certain physical arrangements will have to be made. Surely that is an argument for the wording of the Bill as it stands. Surely the essence of those arrangements is the uncertainty of time. It seems to me that the very arguments of the right hon. Gentleman are sound grounds for leaving the matter to the Minister, who will know quite well whether he has succeeded in finding the members of the Board and the Agency and in making the physical rearrangements.
The right hon. Gentleman recalled that the Conservatives advocated a delay in the take-over of the industry by the Corporation; but I respectfully submit that present circumstances are entirely different from those at the time of the Labour Government's Bill. In the first place, that Bill was plunging into the industrial unknown; it was something entirely new for this industry. The then Government were departing from the accumulated experience of a century or more and were exploring new fields of industrial management in this industry.
This Bill, on the other hand, is designed to restore the industry to that charted field of accumulated industrial experience, and it appears to many of us on this side of the Committee that, far from demanding delay, it demands that the industry should be returned to that charted field as soon as possible. Furthermore, it may be said that the industry has been in a turmoil and a condition of uncertainty for very long and that it is not at all desirable that such condition should be prolonged.

Mr. Mitchison: I was following with great interest what the hon. Gentleman said. Do I understand that he shares my own opinion—that this Bill means taking the iron and steel industry back to the proved experience between the wars?

Mr. Gower: That would be an argument for Second Reading. This Bill is designed, not to take the industry back to the accumulated experience of centuries alone, but rather to take it back to those well-worn channels, modified by the value of the experience of very recent years. I will not repeat the many arguments, both in favour and against the Bill, which were made on Second Reading.
The right hon. Member for Vauxhall said, finally, that the Labour Government allowed nine months; that the Conservative Party then wanted 18 months; and that the compromise was 13 months. Surely the machinery of the Bill is entirely different and the scope is entirely different from that of the Labour Government's Bill. The Labour Party, as I have tried to stress, were doing something which was fundamental and which was experimental. We are doing something which has already been proved and tried by the Coalition Government


and which proved its value during the earlier days of the Labour Government.

Mr. E. L. Mallalieu: Has there been any occasion in the hon. Gentleman's knowledge when there has been a de-nationalisation Bill?

Mr. Gower: All good things must have a start. This is not an experiment in the sense of taking the industry into new fields, but rather of restoring it to something which we have tried.

The Minister of Supply (Mr. Duncan Sandys): First of all, I should like to reciprocate what I believe were expressions of good will and co-operation from the right hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. G. R. Strauss) about the examination, planning and organisation of the debate, although far be it from me to ask for anything more than the cut-and-thrust of debate in dealing with the substance of the Bill. I believe that hon. Members in all parts of the House are happy that the two sides have reached an amicable arrangement about the time-table for the Bill. I am sure this is the proper, orderly way in which to conduct our affairs, and I believe it redounds far better to the credit of Parliament and to the proper and efficient discharge of our business.
4.30 p.m.
The right hon. Gentleman, on behalf of the Opposition, asked for an adequate share of the time available. I feel sure that that is the wish of all my hon. Friends on this side. The last thing we wish is that at the end of this eight and a half days' discussion there should be any grounds for the Opposition feeling that they have not had a full opportunity of discussing the important issues raised in this Bill. For myself, I quite sincerely believe that eight and a half days, if well used, should be sufficient to enable us to have a very full discussion of all the main issues raised in this Bill. The right hon. Gentleman asked for our good will and our co-operation. I feel confident that, on behalf of all my hon. Friends. I can give him that assurance.
Now to turn to the substance of the Amendment. The right hon. Gentleman asked that there should be a reasonable interval—those were his words—between the passing of this Bill and its being put into effect. Of course, I give him the

assurance straight away that there will be a reasonable interval. Whether we shall agree as to what is a reasonable interval is, of course, another matter. It is not our desire that there should be indecent, unbecoming haste, or that we should rush into an organisation at a rate which would lead to inefficiency or damage to the steel industry; but that does not mean to say that we consider that an interval of 12 months is necessary.
It is perfectly correct, as the right hon. Gentleman said, that the Board and the Agency will have to be appointed before the appointed day because on the appointed day the whole machinery which is provided in the Bill conies into operation. The right hon. Gentleman asked that no individuals should be approached before the Royal Assent. I would say to him—and I do not think he is entitled to ask for more—that no commitments
will be entered into with anybody before the Royal Assent has been given.

Mr. Mitchison: The right hon. Gentleman cannot enter into commitments.

Mr. Sandys: No commitments will be entered into.

Mr. Mitchison: They could not be, anyway.

Mr. Sandys: I do not know what the hon. and learned Gentleman means. If he agrees, then there is no need to interrupt me.

Mr. Mitchison: If the right hon. Gentleman will allow me to explain, he cannot enter into commitments under a Bill before it has become an Act of Parliament. His powers to appoint these bodies derive from its being an Act of Parliament, as he knows perfectly well.

Mr. Sandys: Then we are agreed.
Now I turn to the point with which the right hon. Gentleman made some play, and that was the request by the Conservative Party in opposition, during the passage of his Measure in 1949, that the then Government should postpone the bringing into operation of the Act until after the General Election. I ask hon. Members opposite to recognise fairly, as I am sure they will, that the circumstances then were totally different from what they are today. [HON. MEMBERS: "How?"] We were then at the fag end of a Parliament. [Interruption.] I am talking


about 1949, when the Act was passed—1949. The right hon. Member for Vauxhall himself referred to our having asked for the Act not to be brought into operation until after there had been a General Election. That is the point with which I am dealing.

Mr. G. R. Strauss: It may be my fault, but the right hon. Gentleman has misunderstood me. Perhaps, I did not make myself clear. I was talking about the demand by the Conservative Party, voiced specifically by the Secretary of State for the Colonies, after the General Election in March, 1950, when we had five years' office in front of us—March, 1950. It was at that stage, when we had a small majority, as the Conservative Party have now, that he demanded. on behalf of his party, that the take-over date should be postponed until nine months after the next General Election.

Mr. Sandys: Of course, if the right hon. Gentleman was referring to that, that is a different point.

Mr. Strauss: That is the point.

Mr. Sandys: I think his case there is infinitely weaker than the other. I know only from HANSARD what happened in the 1945 to 1950 Parliament, but I was here in the 1950 to 1951 Parliament and remember the position exactly. What we then objected to most strongly was that the party opposite, as the Government. were bringing into operation an Act of Parliament against which the majority of the electors had voted only about six weeks previously.

Mr. Frederick Mulley: Absolute nonsense. Will not the Minister recall the words of the Prime Minister on the efficacy of political manifestos? Does he really think, after all these years' experience of politics, that everybody at a General Election conscientiously votes on one particular issue? Does he not recall the concern in the steel industry, amongst the workers, about this particular Bill?

Mr. Sandys: Nobody more than the party opposite has claimed mandates for this and that on the facts that certain policies were stated, in an election manifesto and that subsequently the party was returned with a majority. It is indisputable that, in the 1950 General

Election, the parties who stood in favour, and declared in their manifestos that they were in favour, of de-nationalisation of the iron and steel industry got a majority of votes over the Labour Party, although the latter were returned as the Government. Therefore, there is no doubt that we were justified in feeling strongly—very strongly indeed—on that occasion that it was wrong, and constitutionally improper for the late Government to go ahead with a Measure against the wishes of the electors, declared only a few weeks previously.
We have been accused on a number of occasions during this past year of creating a state of uncertainty in the iron and steel industry. We have been told that we were—and I, in particular, have been accused of—paralysing progress and holding up development as the result of the uncertainty created by the announcement of our policy to de-nationalise the industry. I ask hon. Members who say that, what could be better calculated to create a state of uncertainty or to paralyse progress than the passing of an Act of Parliament and then putting it into cold storage for a whole year?
Let us consider the situation that would arise if that were done. The Corporation would continue for at least a year under sentence of death, in a state of semi-impotence, rather like a retiring American President during the interval between election day and the inauguration of his successor—except that, instead of the interval being a few weeks it would be 12 months.
It is perfectly true that there must be an interval. The right hon. Gentleman said that the Board and the Agency needed time to take over and he urged delay for a year on technical and organisational grounds. I will not say at this stage exactly how long they should need, but a year is certainly not needed. I do not know whether hon. Members opposite are aware that, until the appointed day, neither the Board nor the Agency will have any powers or duties whatsoever. What are they to do sitting there for a whole year without powers or duties? Are they to be learning the job? Presumably we shall pick some people who know something about what they will be asked to do.
In that connection I want to quote some remarks made by the hon. and


learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison), who has his name to the Amendment, on the Report stage of the Iron and Steel Act, 1949. Then, when it was suggested that there should be a postponement of the bringing into operation of the Bill, he said:
Let us suppose that these gentlemen"—
they are the members of the Corporation—
are appointed and at a reasonably early date. There are suggestions that an embryo Corporation might do something. I cannot see what these gentlemen who already have capacity and experience in the matters on which they have to function are to do. Are they, suppose, to sit there for nine months considering what they are going to do at the end of it? How is their time to be passed? In silent meditation, or in merely twiddling their thumbs in some office or another? Meanwhile, the whole of this industry will be left in an uncertainty for which I see no particular reason."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th April, 1949; Vol. 464, c. 436.]
That is very pertinent to the present discussion.

Mr. E. L. Mallalieu: The right hon. Gentleman has asked whether the men on the Agency and the Board are to learn their job. These men are to be appointed by the Treasury, and presumably they will have financial qualifications. However, they will have to manage the steel companies in their charge. How on earth can they learn their job in less than a year?

Mr. Sandys: We had better deal with that when we come to the Agency.

Mr. Jack Jones: In the spirit of good will and amity in which I propose to speak—[Interruption.] Yes, I was brought up in industry to learn the value of negotiation in direct form and that the waving of big sticks does not get one anywhere—might I ask whether it is not a fact that there would be no need at all for the Steel Corporation being, as the right hon. Gentleman described it, in a state of semi-paralysis had it not been for the fact that the right hon. Gentleman himself put upon it a standstill order?

Mr. Sandys: I thought we had already dealt with that point. It has been raised every time steel has been discussed in the House, and that is often enough in the last 12 months. If the hon. Gentleman

wishes me to remind him of the facts once more, I hope he will remember them this time; I have explained them so often to the House.
No standstill order whatsoever has ever been imposed on the steel industry. Having regard to the fact that a new Government had come into office with a new policy, what I did was to give a direction to the Corporation saying that I wished to be consulted before it took action on certain matters. I never said that the Corporation was not to do those things. In more than nine cases out of 10—I think two cases are pending—where it has asked for my approval, I have readily given it. It is absurd to say that there has been a hold-up of any kind. In any case, the direction which I gave had nothing whatsoever to do with the development or the progress of the industry but was concerned purely with the financial structure of the companies and the composition of their boards. It is absurd to say that a standstill has been imposed by the Government.
4.45 p.m.
There is one point that I want to make clear. I want to remind the Committee that there should be no confusion between the setting up of the Board and the Agency and the fixing of the appointed day, and the transfer of the industry to free enterprise. The setting up of the organisation and the actual selling of companies by the Agency are two entirely separate operations. It is not a very complicated matter to transfer the holdings in steel companies from one public body, the Corporation, to another public body, the Agency. It is quite different from the compulsory acquisition of all the shares which had to take place before the Corporation could get going. and, equally, it is quite different from the selling of the shares to the public, which will be the duty of the Agency. This, as we have already frankly said, will take a considerable period of time.
The Amendment, as I see it—I do not object to it—has one purpose. In Parliamentary life, if one does not like something and one cannot stop it, the next best thing is to try to delay it; that is undoubtedly the purpose of the Amendment. It is understandable, and we take no exception to it, but the Opposition will hardly expect the Government to support it.


The right hon. Gentleman said that there was no urgency; we cannot agree that there is no urgency. If a decision of this importance, affecting a great industry, has been taken by Parliament, it seems only right and proper, natural and efficient that the decision should be implemented as soon as practicable. In saying this I am greatly fortified by some remarks of the right hon. Gentleman himself on a very similar occasion. We shall probably have a lot of fun in this way during the course of the Bill. I think I should draw his attention to the following remarks which he made:
It is highly desirable to cut down, as far as is practicably possible, the period of suspense, uncertainty and unsettlement between the date of the Royal Assent and the date of transfer of these companies to the new Corporation."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th April, 1949; Vol. 464, c. 428.]
The right hon. Gentleman said that we had been asked to follow the advice of the Conservative leaders in Opposition. I ask him to follow his own advice when he was in office.
I would remind him of something else which he said in Committee on the earlier Bill. I will not weary him with any more quotations from his speeches, but he then said:
… it is in the interests of the industry itself that the vesting date should take place reasonably quickly, and as soon as practicable. There should not be one month's delay longer than is necessary."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee C, 26th January, 1949; c. 523.]
Having quoted that, I feel we are unable to accept the Amendment. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to accept, in a good mood and good temper, the view that what was then sauce for the goose is now sauce for the gander.

Mr. G. R. Strauss: I do not propose to controvert the right hon. Gentleman's speech, although I am very much tempted to do so, but there is a question of time and we want to go on to other Amendments. I merely rise to ask him whether he will be a little more specific on the major point of the delay which is likely to take place between the passage of the Bill and the appointed day. At the beginning of his speech, I thought he was going to give us some indication of how long that was likely to be. I do not ask him to be specific, but it would be very interesting to know whether the delay is likely to be three, six or nine months or

what the gap is that the right hon. Gentleman has in mind.

Mr. Sandys: I stand by the principle enunciated by the right hon. Gentleman. to which I have just referred. There should be no more delay than is absolutely necessary. On the other hand, we should not hurry the thing to a point where any damage would be done to the industry. I do not think that I should be committed, any more than the right hon. Gentleman felt that he should be committed in similar circumstances, and I am sure that in his heart he will agree with me entirely, although I know perfectly well that it is difficult for him to say so.

Mr. Strauss: We were committed. We said that the transfer would take place at least nine months after the passage of the Bill, at the earliest, and all that I am asking—and I think that the industry and the country will want to know this—is the sort of period which the Minister has in mind. Is it likely to be one month or six months? I do not ask him to be specific.

Mr. Sandys: Provided the right hon. Gentleman does not ask me to be committed, that is all right. Our view is that we want to do this as quickly as is reasonably possible without damage to the industry, and we think that the quicker this operation can be carried through, and the quicker the new organisation can be set up, the better. Since he asks me, I would say: weeks and not months.

Mr. Jack Jones: This is important. The answer which the right hon. Gentleman has given is completely unsatisfactory to the extent that no idea has been given to us of when this will take place within 12 months. There is one particular point which some of us have in mind. The Iron and Steel Corporation will be presenting, we presume, a report which, if it is a 12 months' working report, will bring us to next August. May we assume that we shall at least get a 12 months' report—the first and complete 12 months' report of the Iron and Steel Corporation—before the vesting date?

Mr. Sandys: That issue arises on the Schedule, and perhaps we may postpone the discussion of it until then.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Frederick Lee: I beg to move, in page 1, line 11, after "1949," to insert:
save subsections (1) to (3), subsection (4) except paragraph (c) thereof, and subsections (5) to (16) of section six of the said Act (which relates to the appointment, duties and powers of the Iron and Steel Consumers' Council).
I think it might be convenient if we discussed this Amendment and the next two Amendments together.

The Chairman: I think we might discuss this Amendment and the next three Amendments together:
In page 1, line 12, leave out "and," and insert:
(b) the said section six shall have effect as though for the words "general date of transfer" there were substituted the words "appointed day," as though for references to "the Corporation" there were substituted references to the Iron and Steel Board constituted under Part II of this Act and as though for the words "that publicly-owned companies" there were substituted the words "iron and steel producers," and.
In page 2, line 1, leave out "(b)," and insert "(c) save as aforesaid."
In page 2, line 2, leave out "that," and insert "the appointed."

Mr. Lee: This Amendment is an attempt to save the Iron and Steel Consumers' Council from the general wreck. In considering this point, the Committee should, I think, appreciate the background against which the Council have worked. The Council were appointed in July, 1951, and their one and only report shows that between that date and September, 1952, they met on five occasions. They met to discuss some quite serious business which had been submitted to them by a number of organisations—the Stainless Steel Fabricators' Association of Great Britain: the Reinforced Concrete Association; the Association of British Chambers of Commerce; the Engineering Industries Association; and various steel consuming interests in Scotland.
I believe that the principal job of the Council, as laid down in the 1949 Act, was that the Council were to assist in the efficient distribution of steel and to concern themselves with fair and proper prices to the consumers of steel. Because of the shortages of imported steel scrap which were manifest in 1951, when, I think only about one-quarter of the amount which we managed to import in

each of the two preceding years was available to us, the Labour Government decided to reintroduce the steel distribution scheme.
Following the General Election, the present Government had to be reminded of the need for the introduction of this scheme by the Consumers' Council. On 20th November, 1951, the Government made an Iron and Steel Distribution Order. Under the Order, the Government became responsible for the allocation of steel to consumers in the different industries. In other words, a great part of the Council's work was thus properly, but, nevertheless, quite definitely, taken from them. The Maximum Prices Order had also been made by the Ministry of Supply, and, even before the first meeting of the Council could take place, the present Government had announced their intention of annulling the 1949 Act altogether.
I paint that picture to show quite clearly that the conditions which obtained then were the exact opposite to those which the Government now wish to create under private enterprise. The position was that the distribution of steel was undertaken by the Government, the price of steel was fixed by the Government, and the present Government had already declared its intention of getting rid of the Council by annulling the 1949 Act.
The Government and their party supporters never tire of telling us that their aim is to pull down the restriction of a planned economy and to create a free one. [Interruption.] I am glad to get confirmation of that from the other side. This Bill aims to create those conditions in the steel industry. In other words, the ultimate object of the Government is to sweep away the valid restrictions which have been responsible for limiting the work of the Consumers' Council.
The arrangements under the 1949 Act for the creation of a Consumers' Council are of the very greatest value, especially to the small consumer of steel, not, I think, in the creation of the Council itself, but in the fact that quite specific powers were given to the Minister who could direct his personal attention to the needs of each and every particular firm. This, of course, meant enormous Parliamentary protection, especially for small firms.


It may well be that the Minister will want to call in aid the report of the Consumers' Council. Therefore, it is proper that we should consider what they have said. They state in paragraph 9 (a):
In November, 1951, your Ministry consulted us informally on a number of matters arising out of the Government's decision to restore to private ownership the sections of the iron and steel industry affected by the Iron and Steel Act, 1949. Most members of the Council felt that they had insufficient knowledge of the iron and steel industry to enable them to give considered answers to most of the questions raised, and that they should, therefore, confine themselves to matters of particular concern to themselves as consumers.
I ask the Committee to take particular note of the following words:
They expressed the view that if the proposed Iron and Steel Board were to be an advisory body to the Ministry of Supply, it would suffice for strong consumer representation to he included in the Board, but that if the Board were to be constituted with executive powers, there should, in the Council's view, be a separate body representative of consumers to advise the Board.
5.0 p.m.
That creates a most peculiar situation. Here we have recommendation from the Consumers' Council themselves that if the Board is to be an advisory body to the Ministry of Supply it would suffice for strong consumer representation to be included in the Board. The Minister may well tell us that in this Bill, he proposes, although he is scrapping the Consumers' Council, to give consumer representation on the Board itself; and the logic of that is that by some means or other this Consumers' Council have formed the impression that the Iron and Steel Board was to be merely an advisory body to the Ministry of Supply.
Let us further examine the report and find where they get that impression. The Consumers' Council say:
In January. 1952, you"—
they are addressing themselves to the Minister—
were good enough to outline to us the duties which it was contemplated would be assigned to the Iron and Steel Board, and we subsequently furnished you with the following comments:
'The Council note that it is proposed that the Iron and Steel Board should be a supervisory body with certain executive powers On the information at present before them the Council do not consider that a separate Consumers' Council is necessary provided that there is adequate representation of consumers on the Board.'

This impression was given to the Consumers' Council before the Bill had been presented, and by some mystic means or other the Minister had managed to convey the impression to the Consumers' Council that this Board would not have great executive powers but would be an advisory Board to the Ministry of Supply. What a different impression to the one which the right hon. Gentleman has been trying to convey to the House and to the country as a whole. From the moment this Bill was put before us we have heard that this Board was to have enormous powers to control the whole of the steel industry and that it was to curb those activities of private enterprise to which we have objected from this side of the Committee.
Yet it would now appear that the Government are carrying out the very condition of putting consumers on the Board itself, which the Consumers' Council indicated they would support only if it was to be merely an advisory Board and not if it was to have executive power in itself. The Consumers' Council which is now to go out of existence is a body with a chairman and 18 other members. There are seven from the Federation of British Industries, one from the British Chambers of Commerce, one from the motor manufacturers, one from the Engineering Association, two iron and steel stockholders, two from the iron and steel merchants, three from the T.U.C. and two from the nationalised industries.
What are we to get in exchange for a body of that sort? We know that within the Bill the membership of the Steel Board can only be a maximum of 11, plus a chairman. We also know. from Clause 2 (3) of the Bill, that there are at least six qualifications which these gentleman must have to become members of the Board. Therefore, it becomes at once quite obvious that there cannot possibly be adequate consumer representation on a Board of that type. Yet despite the fact that there cannot be adequate consumer representation the Minister proposes to scrap the Consumers' Council.
The party opposite have always claimed, so long as I can remember, to be the party representing the consumers. To prove it they now propose to create the very conditions in which steel consumers most need protection and, at the


same time, to scrap the Consumers' Council. I have said that the Minister may well answer me by saying that there are consumer representatives on the Board. I could reply by saying that there were the same type of representatives on the Board, which he is now destroying, of the present Steel Corporation.
The fact is that none of these gentlemen can sit in that capacity. The small numbers which can be accommodated on the Board cannot hope to represent all the main industrial consumers of steel in these days. They must take their full share of the work of the Board, quite distinct from anything in the nature of defending the consumers themselves.
I make particularly the point that the trade unions in the steel consuming industries are now, perhaps more than ever before, entitled to be heard on questions of the distribution of steel. Perhaps the Minister will tell us how the unions in those industries which consume steel can hope to be represented on his main Board. How can there possibly be representation from all the industries, either from the employers' point of view or from the point of view of the trade unions?
It is a most serious issue so far as we—I speak here for a great number of people who are working within the manufacturing industries—are concerned. It is of vital importance to us to feel that we are adequately represented on a Board which is to discuss where the steel allocations shall go.

Mr. Gerald Nabarro: Is not the hon. Member pre-supposing that we are to have steel rationing for ever? All of us, I think, hope that it will disappear in the next few months.

Mr. Lee: I am glad that the hon. Member has made that point; he is making my case for me very well.
I pointed out that the limiting feature of the usefulness of the Consumers' Council had been the fact that there has been rationing and price control by the Government, and the Consumers' Council knew that it was condemned from the moment it met. The hon. Member makes a very good point. He asks, are we not reaching a period in which we can

look forward to the end of steel rationing? Can we? I agree that that is the objective of the Government, but let us examine the position.
The nearer we approach that situation the greater is the need for the Consumers' Council. I say that because all opinion in this Committee agrees that if we are to redress our balance of payment situation, if we are to be able to live at all in the world, we must increase our engineering and shipbuilding industries, and the mining industry must give us more coal to export. These are the three greatest industrial users of steel. Therefore, the nearer we get to success in increasing our production in those industries the greater will be the competition for the steel that the country can produce.
It is no use for anyone to feel that there is anything in this Bill to show how we can vastly increase the production of steel to meet the increased requirements of the three industries to which I have referred. Much of my case is based on the fact that as those conditions which limited the use of the Consumers' Council disappear so we shall get a situation in which it is essential that all these industries shall have adequate representation—both employers and employees—on a Consumers' Council which will allocate steel supplies in a fair and proper manner. I thank the hon. Gentleman for making the point for me so well.
I am fairly sure that very many employers, especially small employers, in the steel consuming industries are extremely worried now to know how they are to fare once we have the glories of private enterprise again with us, and once the restriction, or "rationing" as the hon. Gentleman called it, has gone and they know that they have to fight again in the pool against the big sharks, who can always be expected to win in the last resort.
I have received today a document called "The Shipbuilding Conference," which has been circulated to hon. Members for our information. Dealing with the prospects for 1953, it says:
Everything depends upon the steel supply position. which has been the industry's greatest 'headache' for wellnigh two years. Nothing could be more frustrating than to see orders flowing in at an all-time record rate and to be deprived of essential steel to match that position with an all-out effort in production.


They go on to say:
British shipyards could have achieved with ease a merchant ship output of at least 1,750,000 gross tons per annum. But, in fact, an average of only about 1,300,000 gross tons has been turned out in recent years because of the shortage, first of one material and then of another, but principally of steel.
And add:
To those in the Government or elsewhere who guide our industrial destinies the needs of shipbuilding, whether in relation to supplies of scarce raw materials, freedom from restrictions or taxation and fiscal legislation, should be in the forefront of their thinking.
They ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he can guarantee that shipbuilders will have adequate representation on his Board; if so, should I quote from the opinions in other industries? I have quoted engineering, which is probably 30 or 40 industries rolled into one. Will the mining industry be able to get adequate representation?
I have tried to show that the country's future depends upon our ability greatly to increase our output of steel products. I do not think there is difference on this point among the parties. We all agree. Therefore, there is no conceivable point at which we can believe there can be more steel than those industries require. Indeed, the more successful the Government are in stepping up the production of those commodities the greater the steel shortage will become. The problem of distribution will increase as that process goes on, and competition among steel users will be more and more intense.
I hope that the Government will see that at this period very much depends upon the confidence they can get from the steel consumers. It really is suicidal to take away the power of being able to look into each individual case and redress grievances. It is important for those people to know that around the conference table the representatives of their industries can determine the allocation of steel to each section. Perhaps most important of all is it that my fellow members who are working inside the steel-consuming industries should know that they can agree to bring a large number of people into their industries and can increase production per head, without fearing that they will work themselves into an unemployment queue. The issue is as big as that.
5.15 p.m.
Although the Minister will possibly not agree to alter the basis of his Bill, at least I hope it is common ground beween us that we want to see the production of commodities made from steel increasing every month. Unfortunately, the tendency in industry at present is for that production to go down. The guarantee which a consumer's council can give, working in the conditions which the Minister is trying to bring about, would be far more useful than it has been in the past because of changed economic conditions. It will give industries confidence that their voices can be heard around the table. If the Minister insists upon the destruction of this Consumer's Council, I, and those who have the power to advise my friends, could not possibly guarantee to them that increased production would not mean a return to unemployment.

Mr. J. E. S. Simon: I suggest that the Amendment is misconceived in its form and that its purpose can be achieved very much more simply.
The Consumers' Council was in existence for 16 months and, as the hon. Gentleman says, it was operating under disadvantages; but during the whole of that time there were only five references to it by consumers. On the first two of those references the Council took no action. The third of those references was to prices, and the Council took up the question of prices with the Minister and recommended that frequent changes be avoided, especially where the change was small. On the fourth, the Council took no action at all. On the fifth it took no action, but it did say "We shall, however, continue to watch the situation." If that is the total measure of action which was taken by the Consumers' Council I suggest that it is unnecessary to continue it in action.
The matter goes further, because the Consumers' Council itself, an interested body if ever there was one, suggests that it is no longer needed in the Government's scheme. As the hon. Gentleman said, the scheme was evidently outlined to the Council in January, 1952. They said:
Having noted that it is proposed that the Iron and Steel Board should be a supervisory body with certain executive powers, on the


information at present before them the Council do not consider that a separate Consumers' Council is necessary, provided there is adequate representation of consumers on the Board.
Nor did they ever change their minds, although it is clear from their Report that they have since seen the White Paper.

Mr. Lee: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman read the paragraph preceding the one which I read out, and read it in conjunction with the one that I have just read?

Mr. Simon: The hon. Gentleman read it himself. That was the first time they were consulted, and they gave the information which the hon. Gentleman mentioned.
When they saw the Government's scheme they said that they did not consider that a Consumers' Council was necessary. When they saw the White Paper they did not change their opinion, and since that time their report has been published, after the publication of the Bill. Nor did they see any reason to change their minds and their opinion once the Bill was published. The first point they considered was to put consumers' representatives on the Board. The second was that the Board is frequently enjoined in the Bill to consult such representative organisations as they think fit.
I suggest that the neat and sensible way of dealing with this matter is not to keep a complicated and expensive Consumers' Council in being, but so to define representative organisations as to include consumer organisations. Then the Board can, if they think fit, not only have representatives of consumers in their own body, but consult representative organisations of consumers where they think fit.

Mr. Mitchison: That was a very interesting speech. If the hon. and learned Member for Middlesbrough, West (Mr. Simon) looks through the Amendments on the Order Paper, he will find a number of Amendments from this side of the Committee to the effect that he has just suggested; and we shall welcome him in our Lobby when we divide on those Amendments. Meanwhile, he will find that most of them are in alternative forms, and, of course, which form is

used must depend on what happens to the Consumers' Council that we are now considering.
I am not much interested by people who say, "Oh, so far the Iron and Steel Consumers' Council have not done much": and that is for two reasons. This is not by any means the only consumers' council; there is a very interesting one, for instance, in the gas industry, if hon. Members opposite would like to look into that. Be that as it may, these consumers' councils are new organisations. In the old days, if one had to deal with the iron and steel industry, one could not invoke the aid or the consideration of a consumers' council at all, and this addition to the rights of consumers—as I see it, their very proper rights in an industrial democracy—was made in this case, as in other Acts, by a Labour Government.
It is true that none of the consumers' councils has been used to the extent that some people hoped. They have, however, been used to various degrees, and the reason that they have not been used is in many cases because they have not been sufficiently publicised. It might be said that that is the fault of one Government or another, but there the fact is. Speaking as regards my own constituency, I have had cases—I am sure that other hon. Members have had them, too—in which a constituent has asked for our help when he ought to have gone to the consumers' council, and we, on his behalf, have then done it for him and have found the consumers' council exceedingly useful.
I suggest to right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the Committee, including the Minister, that they ought to consider this innovation—for it has been an innovation—on its merits, and that they ought not to have too close regard to the extent to which it has been used during the earlier years, when people did not know as much as, no doubt, they ought to know about its existence.
That is a perfectly general plea, but there is a very much more important point about this particular Consumers' Council. I hope that we are not going to have more of the suggestion that because it has not been used under the previous set-up, there is no need for it under the set-up that we are now asked


to authorise. There is every need for it, and I think—and in this I agree with the hon. and learned Member for Middlesbrough, West—that one of the most remarkable features in the Bill is the extraordinary way in which it entirely omits consultation with consumers in such perfectly obvious cases, for instance, as the importation and distribution of raw materials and iron and steel products, and in connection with new production or improved old production which the Board and the Minister find is unsatisfactory or at present lacking and can in certain circumstances undertake themselves. There is also the connection with new processes, but that, I think, is not as important; it is the other two cases that strike me as glaring instances.
I feel that what the hon. and learned Gentleman said is absolutely right in substance. The consumers' interests and the possibility of consultation with the consumers are grossly neglected in the Bill as presented to the House. The question that we have to consider is whether, as it were, we are to have a patchwork quilt and put in a lot of ad hoc Amendments as we go along, having previously destroyed the perfectly good bed-covering that was provided by the previous Government.
I see no particular reason for first tearing up the old quilt and then proceeding to sew together lots of bits and pieces to make a new one. Why tear the thing up? It is there, as is the need for it. We were told in an interjection that this was all right, and that so much steel was to be produced in a miraculous way, regardless of any question of the capacity of blast furnaces or the supply of scrap or anything of that sort, that there would be no need to ration it or to arrange its distribution.
I hardly think that the Tory Party have gone quite as far as that into the jungle or quite as far, to use another metaphor, down the slope which the Gadarene swine followed a good many years ago; I would not attribute that to them. If I were to do so, it would show a disregard of the importance of our export trade, a complete neglect of dollar difficulties, and a complete failure to realise that there is, after all, some importance in world trade—for nothing is more urgently needed abroad than exports, not only of stuff manufactured from iron and steel,

but, if we can supply it, of the metal itself. There is no lack of prospective customers.
And then we are told that it will be all right, that everybody can have all the iron and steel they want and can have it without restriction. The hon. Member who was rash enough to say that might consider some of the internal difficulties also and reflect on who the consumers are. I see sitting behind him one of the hon. Members who represents a Sheffield constituency. One of the people who have been to the Consumers' Council are the stainless steel organisation. After all, Sheffield, one way and another, is an important consumer of steel—we do not differ about that.
Are we now to reach a happy state of affairs in which we can have all the cutlery we want and at the same time, the councils can have all the pipes they want for drains in rural areas, the shipbuilders can have all the steel they want and the people who are building a reservoir in my constituency can have the steel that they want to make that reservoir without delay? Is all that going to happen? What about the makers of agricultural machinery? I thought that the Tory Party were particularly interested in them and in agriculture. They have been complaining for a long time past that they could not get the steel they wanted and could not get it quickly enough.
Are we really to gamble on the hopeful, credulous optimism of the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro), and on that somewhat uncertain foundation are we to destroy this very useful piece of administrative machinery? I would rather keep it until we see for certain that the hon. Member for Kidderminster is in this instance, as, no doubt, in others, always right. I see him rising—

Mr. Nabarro: Is the hon. and learned Member giving way to me, or has he finished?

Mr. Mitchison: No; I thought that the hon. Member wanted to reply.

Mr. Nabarro: I thought that the hon. and learned Gentleman had finished.

Mr. Mitchison: I should not have deprived this side of the Committee of any


pearls of wisdom or unwisdom that the hon. Member might have let fall.
If I may continue for a moment, seriously, it is gross folly for ideological prejudice of the Conservative Party to get rid of this piece of machinery till they have given it a proper trial, and until they are sure that under the new dispensation there will be no need for it. At present, as I see it, not only the consuming manufacturers but the actual consumers are concerned. The word is used quite generally in the 1949 Act, and it would cover, for instance, rural local authorities who are very short of tubes and pipes for their water supply, agricultural implement manufacturers, and cases such as I have had in my own constituency where the requirements for special kinds of steel have not been fulfilled.
5.30 p.m.
Before finishing let me dispose of this one short point. If it is to be suggested that representation on the Board is a substitute for the Consumers' Council, I can only say that suggestion will not hold water for a minute, even if it is made by the Consumers' Council itself. The functions of this Board are entirely different, and to have one or two consumers' representatives—and the Minister need not have any—on the Board is no use whatever. There are so many consumers of different types, varying importance and varying size, that to put one or two of them on the Board is no substitute for the Consumers' Council.
It must be remembered that the Board have a job of their own, and that is not the job of representing, as this Council ought to do, the complaints and grievances of consumers. They are supposed to supervise and, we hope, to control the whole industry. What is wanted is not a supervisory body or executive body, but a body which can put forward the complaints of consumers, which can to that extent satisfy the consumers that they are heard, and which can make it certain that they will be heard and attended to. Do not let us destroy the Consumers' Council for the foolish kind of reason that one does not like councils, public bodies, or anything of that sort.

Mr. Robson Brown: Hon. Members opposite are expressing undue anxiety about the ending of the Consumers' Council and the operation of the

Bill in this respect. I am satisfied that the Bill is comprehensive enough to cover the doubts hon. Members opposite may have. The hon. Member for Newton (Mr. Lee) suggested that the qualifications required of the members of the Board precluded representatives of consumers.

Mr. Lee: I certainly did not say that. What I said was that probably the Minister will tell me that there is scope for a consumers' representative on the Board.

Mr. Robson Brown: I apologise if I misunderstood the hon. Gentleman, but he will agree that there is scope for consumers' representatives on the Board.

Mr. Lee: Not at all.

Mr. Robson Brown: I say that there is scope on the Board for representatives of consumers. To suggest that, in practice, these consumers' councils have been effective is not very realistic. In a time of acute shortage the necessity is for some form of rationing, rationalisation and allocation, and at a time when the pressure is greatest, with conflicting interests in the Council, the representatives cancel one another out. With the Board there will be, either through their representatives or through the Board in general, representations from every trade association as users of steel.
The shipbuilding industry, which the hon. Member for Newton mentioned, is quite capable of making effective representations, and public representations, if they feel they are not getting satisfaction. The merchants and smaller companies also have their merchant associations and are quite competent and able to speak with a united voice. Clearly, in neither the public interest nor in the interests of industry generally, the Board would never allow any very small consumer to appear to suffer in any way. It would take great care to see that no situation of that sort arose. Representation of the trade unions is specifically provided for among the members of the Board itself, and other unions could make representations through the trade union representatives on the Board, or could make united representations to the Board collectively.
In practice, I believe this will work out extremely well. Before very long we shall have not a shortage of steel but good supplies of steel, and what we shall


want is representations about the qualities of steel, and about changes in types of steel. Those things cannot be done by a hotch-potch body called a Consumers' Council. Those representations are far better made by a trade association experienced in what they are doing, knowing the problems confronting them, who should be able to present those problems to the proper people without some third intermediary body. In this industry we want efficiency, and not additional fringes to the coverlet or quilt, about which the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) spoke. This Bill is comprehensive and provides all the cover required, and hon. Members opposite need have no anxiety.

Mr. E. L. Mallalieu: The hon. Member for Esher (Mr. Robson Brown) has shown rather touching confidence in boards which have powers in thinking that in no circumstances will a board such as that to be set up under this Bill allow injustice to be done to small men.
We on this side are very jealous of the rights of ordinary men. We dislike the irresponsible exercise of power and of monopoly, and whenever either economic necessity or the rapaciousness of those people who are mostly represented by hon. Gentlemen opposite compel us to have a board of this nature, or a monopoly of any sort, we like to see such safeguards and checks on that monopoly and that board as will render the position of ordinary, small men at least as free as it was under the conditions when there was merely irresponsible monopoly or free competition.

Mr. Robson Brown: Would all those indictments apply also to the National Coal Board? Would the hon. and learned Gentleman say sincerely that the Consumers' Council connected with the Coal Board is working effectively and satisfactorily?

Mr. Mallalieu: I say that we dislike irresponsible monopoly, and we did our best to set up safeguards against that monopoly. if they have not worked perfectly, it may well be that they can be improved. But at least we did not cut them out. The Government are attempting to cut out an adequate safeguard, and on one ground only which has been expressed in the Committee, namely, that

the Consumers' Council which was set up with our Corporation has not functioned because few people have applied to it. It is a great compliment to the Corporation we set up if there have been so few complaints.
Other excellent reasons have been advanced by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) and by my hon. Friend the Member for Newton (Mr. Lee) why the Consumers' Council has not been applied to more frequently. They are reasons which can be found in the heart of the present Government, and not in the nature of the Consumers' Council.
A new Board is being set up which we all hope will be as good as possible under the conditions under which it is to work, but it would be idle to pretend that there are not the gravest suspicions about what they will do and to whom they will owe their allegiance. Is it not a tragedy, therefore, to take away the Consumers' Council which might help to make this Board as effective as the right hon. Gentleman obviously wants it to be? I hope that he will reconsider his opinion and allow this piece of machinery to stand. The fact that it has not done good work may be because the Corporation now to be destroyed were so careful of their duties. If the Board are as careful of their duties as were the Corporation, the Consumers' Council can be abolished later, but at this time it would be a tragedy to do so.

Mr. Nabarro: There was a resemblance between the contribution made by the hon. Member for Newton (Mr. Lee) and that of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) in that they both believe in the economics of scarcity and shortage. I doubt whether there is one of my hon. Friends on this side of the Committee who does not believe that we may be approaching a period of plenty in iron and steel production.
I want to remind the hon. and learned Gentleman that it was his right hon. Friend who, in 1950, put a stop to the allocation system for iron and steel that had been in force for 10 years, and that he did so for the simple economic reason that supply was exceeding demand.

Mr. Mitchison: I do not know what the hon. Gentleman means by my alleged


belief in the economics of shortage and scarcity. I do not think he knows himself and it is safest to say that I totally disagree.

The Deputy-Chairman (Mr. Hopkin Morris): We had better go back to the Consumers' Council.

Mr. Nabarro: I must apologise to you, Mr. Hopkin Morris, for being led astray by the totally irrelevant speech made by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Kettering.
The fact is that consumers' consultative councils are quite impotent in their operations. Since they were misconceived by the party opposite they have served little or no purpose and in the case of every nationalised undertaking that has one, it has a long record of failure to satisfy the consumers.
The Consumers' Council for the steel industry was set up for the same political purpose as the consumers' councils in the other nationalised industries—to dress the shop window, as the hon. Member for Newton said, in the hope that it would impress consumers that the interests of the small man were being safeguarded. In fact, every consumers' council is totally impotent in the face of a monopoly. The one that operates in the electricity industry faces a monopoly. That monopoly rarely or ever heeds a recommendation made by the consumers' council.
The essential difference in the case of the iron and steel industry is that it will not be a monopoly after this Bill reaches the Statute Book. I see that the hon. Member for Cleveland (Mr. Palmer) laughs. I doubt whether he has any experience as a steel consumer. I have that experience in industry and can say that at the moment there are steel companies queueing up to sell certain steel products to people who have licences. That state of affairs will spread right through the metal consuming industries, as steel production in this country rises in the course of the next few years.

Mr. Lee: Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that if the Government are successful in expanding the size of the manufacturing industries, the demand on that increased amount of steel will be even larger than the increase in production?

Mr. Nabarro: That is presumptuous in the extreme. We are planning to expand steel production from 17 million tons to 20 million tons in five years, provided the nationalised coal industry produces enough coal. I do not believe that demand will outstrip supply in the iron and steel industry. In any event, the purpose of a consultative council is not to allocate a material in short supply, as the hon. Member for Newton suggested.

Mr. Lee: That is not outside its functions.

Mr. Nabarro: In times of stress and shortage it might perhaps have acted in that capacity, but we are approaching a period when supply will exceed demand and, therefore, even that limited purpose of the consultative council would not have any validity.
5.45 p.m.
Now let me turn to the conditions that will obtain after this Bill reaches the Statute Book and after the Consumers' Council has disappeared. If any consumer has difficulty in regard to iron and steel products within any of the metal using industries, surely the legitimate channel for dealing with such matters is the appropriate trade association. I believe that on the Iron and Steel Board there should not be more than one consumer representative. Certainly, no form of consultative council is necessary because the Board are no longer a monopoly. If they were, then, in accordance with the window dressing habits of the party opposite, there might be a remote reason for having a consultative council.
I hope my right hon. Friend will reject these Amendments and not seek to perpetuate a system of consultative councils which have proved useless in the past, which will always be futile in the face of a monopoly and which will have no useful purpose in a free enterprise economy such as my hon. Friends and myself always support.

Mr. Sandys: We all agree that we want to see consumer interests properly protected. The question is how we do it. I understand well that the difference between us on this issue is that the party opposite would like to see the Consumers' Council, which was set up under the 1949 Act, maintained under the present legislation, but I did not understand the


arguments adduced by the hon. Member for Newton (Mr. Lee) in support of his case. It seemed to be based mainly on the fear that, if the Consumers' Council were abolished, the ship-building and other industries which he mentioned would not be able to rely on an adequate allocation of steel.

Mr. Lee: indicated assent.

Mr. Sandys: I am glad the hon. Member confirms that. I want to make it clear, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) a moment ago, that it is not the function of a Consumers' Council to allocate steel nor can it, by the very nature of things, play any effective part in the allocation of steel. Of course, a Consumers' Council can bring to the notice of the Government a shortage of steel, but it is not until the consumers are in difficulties that representations are made.
What happens in practice? We have a certain amount of experience so we are no longer talking theoretically about how allocation schemes work. The firm goes straight to the Ministry of Supply or to their sponsoring Department and says. "We are in difficulties and cannot carry out important export or defence orders." The matter is examined with the individual firm. The consultation which takes place between the Government as the allocating authority and the industry is primarily that with individual firms. We do not make allocations in terms of whole industries, but have to decide how many tons are to be allocated to a particular firm in a particular quarter.
When wider consultation is needed it takes place between the Government and the trade association representing that industry. Having a number of people round a table, all representing that industry and knowing its various aspects is a far more effective way of consulting an industry as to its requirements than going to a consumers' council with about 18 members, of whom not necessarily even one will represent the industry concerned.
The hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) also spoke as though the Consumers' Council was mainly concerned, or to a great extent concerned, with steel rationing. He talked about the great danger of derationing steel too soon. He referred to some

announcement, with which I am not familiar, to the effect that steel was to be derationed in a great hurry and likened us to the Gadarene swine. To what did he liken his Government when they derationed steel in May, 1950, and had to announce only a year after that rationing would have to be reintroduced?

Mr. Mitchison: Without any further entry into what I may call the pig controversy, the announcement in question came from the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro). I am glad to have the agreement of the Minister that it was unauthorised, premature and unreliable.

Mr. Nabarro: I am so sorry—

The Deputy-Chairman: I do not think that the derationing of steel is the subject of this Amendment.

Mr. Nabarro: On a point of order. A most improper allegation was made. I did not say that steel was to be derationed; I said it might be.

Mr. Sandys: if my hon. Friend's statement went no further than that I would see no possible exception to it. After all, it is obviously within the bounds of possibility that such a thing might happen. The description of Gadarene swine is rather exaggerated if it applies to a statement of such extreme moderation.
In all parts of the Committee we naturally want to see the interests of consumers protected, particularly in relation to this important industry. But we on this side of the Committee have never been greatly in love with consumers' councils because we have never thought that they provide a really effective means of protecting the interests of consumers. Under the 1949 Act, the Corporation were given a general duty to ensure to consumers an adequate supply of iron and steel products, at reasonable prices. No provision was made in the Act—for reasons which are quite clear—for consumers to be represented on the Corporation Knowledge and experience of the steel consuming industries was not among the qualifications for membership of the Corporation.
That line of thought having been adopted—and I am not quarrelling with it, it is one of the ways in which this problem can be approached—it followed,


not altogether illogically, that it was necessary to set up some body outside the Corporation to represent consumer interests. I do not know that, even under the 1949 Act, a Consumers' Council was necessarily the best way to protect consumer's interests.
But we are not dealing today with the same problem; it is not the problem of a State monopoly in which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster pointed out, there are very different conditions. We are considering an industry returned to free enterprise, where competition will be one of the consumer's main safeguards. We are not resting on that alone. In addition to the wider and freer competition which we firmly believe will be created as a result of this legislation, we have decided to provide some specific safeguards for consumers. Two courses were open to us. One was to follow the precedent of the 1949 Act and to create a Consumers' Council, or to appoint consumers to the Board itself.

Mr. Jack Jones: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will make this clear to us, because it has a very important bearing on subsequent Amendments and our attitude to certain Clauses in the Bill. Is he now telling the Committee categorically that after the passing of the Bill and after a fair and reasonable time for the Measure to become operative, there will be in the industry a competitive price system to which consumers can go for competitive prices for the same article, analyses and so on?

Mr. Sandys: The hon. Member knows the steel industry better than I do; he has spent many years in it. What is quite clear is that we wish to restore, as fully as possible, conditions of free enterprise and free competition within the industry. We all know that this great basic industry is dependent upon a fair number of large plants. Obviously the degree of competition is less than in industries composed of very large numbers of small firms which may spring up in competition with one another. That is one of the fundamental facts of the steel industry which we all recognise.
Because of the nature of the problem we decided that it was necessary, in addition to restoring free enterprise, to pro-

vide certain safeguards in the Bill for protection of consumer interests—

Mr. Jones: rose—

Mr. Sandys: I am getting back to where I was when the hon. Member interrupted me and I wish to explain what I have in mind. Perhaps, if the hon. Member is not then satisfied, he will intervene or ask a question. I am explaining what we are doing to protect consumer interests. We had two alternative courses—one to set up a consumers' council and the other to put consumers on the Board. We have followed the precedent of the 1949 Act and published a list of qualifications. Although we have not actually said in the Bill that there must be a consumer on the Board, it is, of course, our intention that there shall be not only one, but more than one consumer among the members of the Board.
We believe that this second course provides a far more effective safeguard for the consumer interest than having an outside body. We think it far better for consumers to be in on the ground floor and have a say in the taking of the Board's decisions rather than merely have the right to make a protest some time afterwards when something detrimental to their interests has happened. We recognise very well that the hon. and learned Member for Kettering was right when he said that there are so many kinds of consumers that two or three consumers on a Board of this kind could not cover the whole of the consumers' industries. But nor can a consumers' council of 18.
6.0 p.m.
As hon. Members will know, the Amendment we have tabled to Clause 31 deals specifically with this point, and, as that Amendment is pertinent to this discussion, perhaps I should explain it. Throughout the Bill a duty has been placed on the Board to consult with what are called representative organisations. Those organisations, as at present defined in the Bill, relate only to organisations representative of producers of iron and steel. What our Amendment does is to extend the interpretation to include the workpeople in the industry, the consuming industries and the producers. Therefore, in this way in a number of vital places in the Bill we are placing upon the Board the duty to consult organisations representing the consuming


interests. We believe that what we propose in the Amendment to Clause 31 will provide a very much more comprehensive method of consultation than would any Consumers' Council.
I now turn to the views expressed by the Consumers' Council. As soon as we came into power we asked certain people in important organisations for their views as to whether we should continue to have a Consumers' Council after the denationalisation of the iron and steel industry. That issue was put to the existing Consumers' Council, and everybody will agree that this was a straightforward way of going about it.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Middlesbrough, West (Mr. Simon) corrected a misapprehension expressed by the hon. Member for Newton (Mr. Lee) about the interpretation to be based upon the Consumers' Council Report. The sequence of events was that in November we asked the Consumers' Council whether they considered that a Consumers' Council should continue after the de-nationalisation of the iron and steel industry. They wrote back to us to say that the information we had given them was insufficient to enable them to form a final opinion, and, as was to be expected, they gave us a vague answer.
In January, however, we gave the Consumers' Council a much more complete picture of the form which the Bill would take. The Consumers' Council then said that, in their opinion, it would not be necessary to have a Consumers' Council. This opinion was quoted in their Report of December last year. I think it is quite conclusive that, although they had seen the White Paper and the text of the Bill as well as having read the debates in this House on both, they were still of the opinion that, under the system proposed in this Bill, they considered that a Consumers' Council was not necessary.
Although it has already been referred to, I should like to read the relevant sentences of the letter to the Committee. This was the reply of the Consumers' Council which was contained in their Report of last month. It said:
The Council note that it is proposed that the Iron and Steel Board should be a supervisory body"—
not, as one Member suggested, an advisory body—

a supervisory body with certain executive powers. On the information at present before them"—
they had the full particulars later—
the Council do not consider that a separate Consumers' Council is necessary provided that there is adequate representation of consumers on the Board.
They go on to suggest certain representation, I think two out of nine. In point of fact the Board has a maximum of 12, and I think we shall find that the proportion of consumers on it is quite up to that which they had in mind.
These opinions of Consumers' Council fully endorse the view of the Government that the arrangements which we propose will provide more direct representation of consumers' interests and more comprehensive consultation with consumers than the present system. For these reasons, we feel unable to accept the Amendment.

Mr. G. R. Strauss: I should like to make a few comments on the reply which we have had from the Government, a reply which we very much regret. First I should like to say that one of the most remarkable features of the Bill before us is the way in which those responsible for it seem to forget almost entirely the interests of the workers and consumers in this industry. Throughout the Bill, the Board are asked to consult certain representative bodies, but no mention is made either of the consumers' or workers' interests. One of the tasks before us in drafting Amendments to this Bill was to see that both consumers and workers had a say in a number of matters.
I was delighted to hear from the Minister today that he has at last realised that the consumers of iron and steel are important people, and has drafted an Amendment, which we shall have to study carefully, to bring the steel consumers into consultation on various matters. But whether that Amendment is satisfactory or not, we still stand by the view put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. Jack Jones) that the most desirable, the easiest and most effective way of protecting the consumers in the industry is to have a representative council through which their difficulties, complaints and suggestions can be channelled.
I want to say one or two words in addition to what has been said by my hon. Friend. The first is that in the past, when this industry was far freer and more competitive than is the case today, there were constant complaints from consumers about its inefficiency and that it was not concerned with the problems of the consumer. All sorts of complaints were put forward, and one particularly outspoken complaint which will be remembered by hon. Members in all parts of the House was that by Lord Nuffield, who referred to certain aspects of the iron and steel industry. He is a big man and, therefore, he was quoted extensively, quite apart from the rather colourful language that he used which enabled his comments to get into the Press.
Before that there were complaints made constantly by smaller people, about the inefficiency of the industry and the poor way in which they were being served. These complaints may have been right or wrong. I do not know whether they were justified, but until some machinery was set up, such as we proposed under the 1949 Act, there was no proper, effective channel through which consumers could be certain to have their complaints looked into and certain that, if their complaints were justified, action would be taken as a result.
We believe that the setting up of the Consumers' Council under our Measure was one of the most important features of that Measure. It enabled all industries, if they felt something was wrong, to put forward a complaint. It also provided, if the Minister considered the complaint justifiable, for it to be attended to, and the proper action taken. The Minister had the power to take such action wherever he saw there was a good reason for doing so. We therefore regret that this Consumers' Council provided under the 1949 Act is to be abolished.
What does the right hon. Gentleman say he is going to put in place of it? He says, "It is all right. Consumers' councils anyhow, are not much use." That was also the argument put forward by other hon. Members opposite. I do not agree. Six important and responsible trade organisations in this country appealed to the Consumers' Council

which we set up for help and advice, and it is an extraordinary thing to say now that the Council is a body which everyone knows is of no use at all. These important industries did approach the Council on certain matters because they thought the Council was important.
As has been pointed out, and as the Council itself pointed out, a very large part of its work disappeared when the Government brought in the allocation scheme. But that is no reason for saying that the Council was not a valuable and effective body and an important weapon in bringing about greater efficiency in the industry; because this organisation alone enabled the complaints of consumers to be focused and brought to the Board, and for any changes to be effectively brought about by Ministerial direction as a result of a complaint put forward by any consumer, large or small.
The right hon. Gentleman now says, "We have done something far more effective." I should like to deal with that point. He says, "We are going to put one consumer representative, or it may be two, on the Board." I think I speak for all right hon. and hon. Members on this side of the Committee in this respect, when I say that we believe that when a Board is set up to manage an industry—a board of directors, an executive board, a supervisory board to see that the industry develops, and so on—it is wrong in principle, and leads to nothing but conflict, argument and disruption of that body, if conflicting interests are put on it, each of them being there in order to put forward a particular point of view.
For that reason we have always opposed that in the nationalisation Measures which we put forward. In so doing we followed the general practice of industry, that conflicting interests should not be put on a board and thus make it an arena of combat. A board on which this industry is represented, or this worker represented, or this consumer represented, is merely a group of people concerned with special and different purposes. We say that sort of board is a bad one and that it cannot lead to the good results which are to be achieved where everybody on the board is animated by the one purpose of making a success of the undertaking.


If we want this Board to have a single objective, with every member united in the pursuit of that objective, then to put consumer interests, or any other special interests, on it is wrong; and that is exactly what the Minister proposes to do. We think it is one of the stupidest features, but not the most stupid feature, of this Bill.
If we put one or two consumer representatives on the Board, can they really represent the consumers of the iron and steel industry? Incidentally, the Consumers' Council have said they think it would be right, if there were no council for consumers, that there should be two representatives of consumers, two independent members and an independent chairman on the Board. We have not been told definitely whether all those three conditions are to be fulfilled. If they are, I think we should be told. Those were the conditions laid down in the Report. If that is to be so, I think it ought to be stated, possibly in the Bill.
6.15 p.m.
If hon. Members will consider the number of different types of consumers of iron and steel, they will appreciate how impossible it will be for one or two people to represent all those interests. Everything from shipbuilding to the making of toys is affected. There is hardly a single product in this country which has not something to do with iron and steel. Our great engineering industry, the aeroplane industry, the motor industry, tool-making, agricultural implements, pins and needles—every single thing of importance one can think of which is made in this country contains some element of iron and steel, and mostly a big element.
Under our Iron and Steel Consumers' Council, there was an arrangement for sub-committees to represent almost every type of industry which might want to put forward, not necessarily complaints, but suggestions for improvements, so that they might better serve the consumers of any particular category. There would have been, not, I hope, an elaborate, but a simple organisation set up where, not so much individuals—although there might occasionally be individuals—but every group of consumers, however small they might be, would have the opportunity to put forward their case for some improvement in a type of production. It

might be in regard to delivery, or allocation of materials in times of shortage, and so on. Here we are to have two people on the Board who are put there, not for the purpose of the general welfare of the industry, but to protect the consumers; and those two people are supposed to look after all the iron and steel consumers in the country.

Mr. Sandys: The right hon. Gentleman has asked me a question, and I might as well answer it now. There will be at least two representatives on the Board. Before the right hon. Gentleman finishes, perhaps he will explain why it is that he brushes aside so simply and sweepingly the fact that the Consumers' Council ought to know their own business. They themselves say that, in the circumstances envisaged in the new Bill, provided there is this kind of representation, they do not consider a Consumers' Council will be necessary. If the right hon. Gentleman is going to make these sweeping accusations, I think he ought to answer that point.

Mr. Strauss: I certainly will, and I am grateful to the Minister for telling us he is carrying out the conditions laid down by the Consumers' Council for protecting the consumers.
I was saying that, in my view, it is impossible for two consumer representatives on the Board to protect the interests of the consumers as a whole. I say further that I disagree completely with the view of the Consumers' Council on this matter, and I am entitled to do that. The Council wobbled on this matter. They came to one conclusion which is not in conformity with their next conclusion. They first said—and as my hon. Friend quoted—that if the Iron and Steel Board was to be an advisory body, it would suffice to have a strong consumer representation; but if it was to have executive powers there should be a separate body representative of consumers. I think this is an executive body. It is an important point and I think it is important to ask whether it is an executive body or not; but I think that, according to the decision of the Council, it is an executive body. It follows logically, according to them, that there should be a Consumers' Council established to protect the consumers. I think they were right when they came to that conclusion.


Those are our views. We consider that the consumers are being deprived of protection, and of an organisation which would help to make the industry itself more efficient and more able to help the other industries of this country. For the reason I have given, and for many more which I should like to give had I the time, I say it is regrettable that the Government are unable and unwilling to accept our Amendment.
The consumer is now deprived of the protection of this House; the Minister had direct responsibility to see that the

complaint of any consumer was looked into, but now he will be deprived of that right. The consumers will have to rely on one or two people serving on the Board. We consider that is all wrong. We regret deeply the decision of the Government, and we feel bound, without further debate, to vote in favour of this Amendment, and against the Government.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 237: Noes, 260.

Division No. 63.]
AYES
[6.20 p.m


Adams, Richard
Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
Lee, Frederick (Newton)


Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)
Evans, Edwards (Lowestoft)
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)
Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)


Anderson, Alexander (Motherwell)
Fernyhough, E.
Lindgren, G. S.


Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)
Fienburgh, W.
Lipton, Lt.-Cot. M


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Finch, H. J.
MacColl, J. E.


Awbery, S. S.
Fletcher, Eric (Islington. E.)
McGhee, H. G.


Bacon, Miss Alice
Follick, M.
McInnes, J.


Baird, J.
Foot, M. M
McLeavy, F.


Balfour, A.
Forman, J. C.
MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)


Bartley, P.
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
McNeill, Rt. Hon. H.


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J
Freeman, Peter (Newport)
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)


Bence, C. R.
Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N
Mainwaring, W. H


Benn, Wedgwood
Gibson, C. W.
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)


Beswick, F.
Glanville, James
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Gooch, E. G
Mann, Mrs. Jean


Bing, G. H. C.
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Manuel, A. C.


Blackburn, F.
Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale)
Mellish, R. J


Blenkinsop, A.
Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Arthur (Wakefield)
Messer, F.


Boardman, H.
Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.
Mikardo, Ian


Bottomley, Rt. Hon A. G.
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Mitchison, G. R.


Bowden, H. W.
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Monslow, W.


Bowles, F. G.
Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)
Moody, A, S.


Brockway, A. F
Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Morley, R.


Brook, Dryden (Halifax)
Hall, John T. (Gateshead, W.)
Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Hamilton, W. W.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, S.)


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Hannan, W.
Mort, D. L


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Hardy, E. A.
Moyle, A.


Burton, Miss F. E.
Hargreaves, A.
Mulley, F. W


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)
Harrison, J.(Nottingham, E.)
Murray, J. D.


Callaghan, L. J.
Hastings, S.
Nally, W.


Carmichael, J.
Hayman, F. H.
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P J


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Healey, Denis (Leeds, S.E.)
Oldfield, W. H


Champion, A. J.
Herbison, Miss M.
Oliver, G. H.


Chapman, W. D.
Hobson, C. R.
Orbach, M.


Chetwynd, G. R
Holmes, Horace (Hemsworth)
Oswald, T.


Clunie, J.
Houghton, Douglas
Padley, W. E.


Coldrick, W
Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)
Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)


Collick, P. H.
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Palmer, A. M. F.


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Pannell, Charles


Cove, W. G.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Pargiter, G. A.


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Paton. J.


Crosland, C. A. R.
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Peart, T. F.


Grossman, R. H. S.
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Popplewell, E.


Cullen, Mrs. A.
living, W. J. (Wood Green)
Porter, G.


Daines, P
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Price, Joseph T. (Westhoughton)


Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
Janner, B.
Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)


Darling, George (Hillsborough)
Jay, Rt Hon. D. P. T.
Proctor, W. T.


Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)
Jeger, George (Goole)
Pryde, D. J.


Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)
Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford)
Pursey, Cmdr. H.


de Freitas, Geoffrey
Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)
Rankin, John


Deer, G.
Jones, David (Hartlepool)
Reeves, J.


Delargy, H. J
Jones, Frederick Elwyn (West Ham, S.)
Reid, Thomas (Swindon)


Dodds, N N
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Reid, William (Camlachie)


Donnelly, D. L.
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Richards, R.


Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John (W. Bromwich)
Keenan, W.
Roberts, Albert(Normanton)


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C
Kenyon, C.
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Edwards, John (Brighouse)
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
King, Dr. H. M.
Ross, William


Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)
Kinley, J.
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.




Short, E. W.
Taylor, Rt. Hon. Robert (Morpeth)
Wheeldon, W. E.


Shurmer, P. L. E.
Thomas, David (Aberdare)
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Silverman, Julius (Erdington)
Thomas, George (Cardiff)
Wigg, George


Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)
Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.


Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)
Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)
Wilkins, W. A.


Slater, J.
Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)
Willey, F. T.


Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)
Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)
Williams, David (Neath)


Snow, J. W.
Thornton, E.
Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)


Sorensen, R. W.
Thurtle, Ernest
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank
Timmons, J.
Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)


Sparks, J. A.
Tomney, F.
Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)


Steele, T.
Turner-Samuels, M
Winterbottom, Ian (Nottingham, C.)


Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn
Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)


Stokes, Rt. Hon. R. R.
Viant, S. P
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.
Watkins, T. E.
Wyatt, W. L.


Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)
Webb, Rt. Hon. M. (Bradford, C.)
Yates, V. F.


Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.
Weitzman, D.
Younger, RI. Hon K.


Sylvester, G. O.
Wells, Percy (Faversham)



Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)
Wells, William (Walsall)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Taylor, John (West Lothian)
West, D. G.
Mr. Pearson and Mr. J. Johnson.




NOES


Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)
Dugdale, Rt. Hon. Sir T. (Richmond)
Jones, A. (Hall Green)


Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)
Duncan, Capt. J A L.
Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.


Amory, Healhcoat (Tiverton)
Eccles, Rt. Hon. D. M.
Kaberry, D.


Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.
Elliot. Rt. Hon. W. E.
Keeling, Sir Edward


Arbuthnot, John
Erroll, F. J.
Kerr, H. W.


Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)
Fell, A.
Lambert, Hon. G.


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.)
Finlay, Graeme
Lambton, Viscount


Astor, Hon. J. J.
Fisher, Nigel
Lancaster, Col. C. G.


Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.
Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.
Langford-Holt, J. A.


Baldwin, A. E.
Fletcher-Cooke, C.
Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.


Barber, Anthony
Fort, R.
Leather, E. H. C.


Barlow, Sir John
Foster, John
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H


Baxter, A. B.
Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)
Legh, P. R. (Petersfield)


Beach, Maj. Hicks
Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe &amp; Lonsdale)
Linstead, H. N.


Beamish, Mai. Tufton
Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir David Maxwell
Llewellyn, D. T.


Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Galbraith, Rt. Hon. T. D. (Pollok)
Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)


Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)


Bennett, F. M. (Reading, N.)
Garner-Evans, E. H.
Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.


Bennett, Sir Peter (Edgbaston)
George, Rt. Hon. Maj. G. Lloyd
Longden, Gilbert


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Glyn, Sir Ralph
Low, A. R. W.


Bennett, William (Woodside)
Godber, J. B.
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)


Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.
Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)


Birch, Nigel
Gough, C. F. H.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh


Bishop, F. P.
Gower, H. R.
McAdden, S. J.


Black, C. W.
Graham, Sir Fergus
McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.


Boothby, R. J. G.
Gridley, Sir Arnold
Macdonald, Sir Peter


Bossom, A. C.
Grimond, J.
Mackeson, Brig. H. R.


Boyle, Sir Edward
Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
McKibbin, A. J.


Braine, B. R.
Hall, John (Wycombe)
McKie, J. H. (Galloway)


Braithwaite, Lt.-Cdr. G. (Bristol, N.W.)
Harden, J. R. E.
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John


Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)
Hare, Hon. J. H.
Maclean, Fitzroy


Brooman-White, R. C.
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.)
MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)


Bullock, Capt. M.
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)


Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Macpherson, Maj. Niall (Dumfries)


Burden, F. F. A.
Harvey, Air Cdre A. V. (Macclesfield)
Maitland, Comdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)


Butcher, Sir Herbert
Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)
Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)


Campbell, Sir David
Hay, John
Manningham-Buller, Sir R. E


Carr, Robert
Heald, Sir Lionel
Markham, Major S. F.


Carson, Hon. E.
Heath, Edward
Marlowe, A. A. H.


Cary, Sir Robert
Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Marples, A. E.


Channon, H.
Higgs, J. M. C
Marshall, Sir Sidney (Sutton)


Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)
Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)
Maude, Angus


Cole, Norman
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C


Colegate, W. A.
Hirst, Geoffrey
Medlicott, Brig. F


Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert
Holland-Martin, C. J.
Mellor, Sir John


Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Hollis, M. C.
Molson, A. H. E.


Cranborne, Viscount
Hope, Lord John
Morrison, John (Salisbury)


Crookshank, Capt. RI. Hon. H. F. C.
Hopkinson, Rt. Hon. Henry
Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P
Nabarro, G. D. N.


Crouch, R. F
Horobin, I. M.
Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)


Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)
Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence
Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)


Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)
Howard, Greville (St. Ives)
Noble, Cmdr. A. H. P.


Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)
Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)
Nugent, G. R. H.


Davidson, Viscountess
Hulbert, Wing Cdr. N. J.
Oakshott, H. D.


Deedes, W. F.
Hurd, A. R.
O'Neill, Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)


Digby, S. Wingfield
Hutchinson, Sir Geoffrey (Ilford, N.)
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.


Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Hutchison, Lt. Com. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)
Orr, Capt, L. P. S.


Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.
Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M.
Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)


Donner, P. W.
Hylton-Foster, H. B. H.
Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian (Weston-super-Mare)


Doughty, C. J. A.
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Osborne, C.


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord Malcolm
Jennings, R.
Partridge, E.


Drayson, G. B.
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Peake, Rt. Hon. O.


Drewe, C.
Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)
Perkins, W. R D.







Peto, Brig. C. H. M
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.
Turner, H. F. L.


Peyton, J. W. W.
Shepherd, William
Turton, R. H.


Pickthorn, K. W. M
Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Pilkington, Capt. R. A
Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter
Vane, W. M. F.


Pitman, I. J.
Smithers, Sir Waldron (Orpington)
Vosper, D. F.


Powell, J. Enoch
Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W)


Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)
Snadden, W. McN.
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. Marylebone)


Profumo, J. D.
Spearman, A. C. M.
Walker-Smith, D. C


Raikes, Sir Victor
Speir, R. M.
Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)


Remnant, Hon. P.
Spens, Sir Patrick (Kensington, S.)
Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)


Renton. D. L. M
Stevens, G. P.
Watkinson, H. A.


Roberts, Peter (Heeley)
Steward, W. A. (Woolwich, W.)
Webbe, Sir H. (London &amp; Westminster)


Robertson, Sir David
Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)
Wellwood, W.


Robinson, Roland (Blackpool. S.)
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.
Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles [...]


Robson-Brown, W.
Storey, S.
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)
Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)
Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)


Roper, Sir Harold
Stuart, Rt Hon. James (Moray)
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard
Sutcliffe, Sir Harold
Wills, G.


Russell, R S.
Taylor, Charles (Eastbourne)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.
Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)
Wood, Hon. R


Salter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur
Teeling, W.
York, C


Sandys, Rt Hon. D
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. P. L. (Hereford)



Savory, Prof. Sir Douglas
Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Schofield, Lt.-Col. W. (Rochdale)
Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, W)
Major Conant and Mr. Redmayne.


Scott, R. Donald
Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N

6.30 p.m.

Mr. Wilfred Fienburgh: I beg to move, in page 2, line 10, after "may," to insert "by order."
I should like also to refer to another Amendment standing in my name and the names of some of my hon. Friends—in page 2, line 21, at end, add:
(5) The power conferred by this section on the Minister to make orders shall be exercisable by statutory instrument and no such statutory instrument shall be made unless a draft thereof has been laid before Parliament and has been approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.
The object of these Amendments is to remove from the automatic and uncontrolled discretion of the Minister the power to name the appointed day for the carrying out of this Measure. We feel that it would be better were the House to be left in possession of the power to control the fixing of the appointed day by affirmative Resolution. We are convinced that the Government, in pursuing this particular legislation at this time, are trying rather hastily to correct their own dilatory activities of the past year.
We were told before the General Election that one of the major and most important economic acts that would have to be undertaken by an incoming Conservative Government would be to restore the steel industry to private enterprise. We have passed the first year, at the end of which our major contribution to legislation was an Act to hand over to private enterprise and ownership in new towns the public houses not yet built, but still on the draughtsman's board.
The Minister now comes forward with proposals for the handing over of the iron and steel industry, and he has indicated today the degree of near-panic with which he faces the forthcoming Conservative Conference. He did so when he indicated that he proposes to name the appointed day a matter of some weeks, not months, after the date on which this Bill receives the Royal Assent. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman chose his words very carefully, and, after calculation, I make that period to be seven weeks practically on the dot—or, at least, six or seven weeks. The Minister said weeks, not months; and therefore I assume that he meant a matter of seven weeks, which is going to be very speedy action.
There are very many reasons why we believe that this industry, which is doing well and making a great contribution, which is increasing production and increasing its productivity, as well as increasing its profits, should be allowed to continue under the régime which has proved so beneficial, not only to the industry itself, but to the workers and the consumers—the régime of public ownership—over the last few months.
The effective application of politics is a matter of two things. It is first a matter of decision in principle, and it is also a matter of the time when that decision is applied. A decision on the matter may be all right at one particular moment and wrong in a slightly different set of circumstances a little while after-wards, and therefore, although we hold out no great hopes that we are going to persuade the Government to drop a


decision which we feel is wrong in principle—to hand over the steel industry to private ownership—we want to retain within the control of this House the power to govern the timing of that decision, because a timing which is wrong can make even more stupid and vicious an action which is stupid and vicious in the first place, while timing which is perhaps not quite so bad may remove some of the bad effects of a bad and stupid action.
Why timing is important I shall try to summarise under two heads. First, the timing of the appointed day will be extremely important in relation to the general economic circumstances of the country at the time. We may be facing in a few months' time a period when the tailing off of re-armament orders in the United States, with the tailing off of re-armament orders in this country, may completely reverse the situation in regard to the profitability of the steel industry in this country.
I agree straight away with one remark made by the hon. Member for Esher (Mr. Robson Brown). I believe we are shortly going into a period when there will be an abundance of steel, but I do not adduce the same reasons for that as the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro). In support of that prognostication, I believe that we shall have an abundance of steel because the tempo of our economy will be slowed down progressively under this Administration. I believe that there will be more steel than industry can use, not because more steel is being produced in an expanding output, but because of a general decline in production and a consequential decline in demand.
I think the evidence is pretty clear. Within a few months the steel industry will certainly begin to feel some of the effects of the Government's restriction of credit policy in the consequential slowing down of industrial investment and the consequential inability of many firms which wish to expand to undertake the expansion they desire. One effect will be a decline in the demand for some of the products of the steel industry. We must add to that not only the possible reduction in armament orders, but the forthcoming effects of the Government's social policy—a policy of increasing food prices and of reducing the demand for consumer goods—a policy which itself is bound to

have repercussions on the further level of industrial productivity and investment.
The steel industry is the barometer of all industry. Today, production in this country is down, and the level of investment is down. Tomorrow, the sale prices of the steel industry will be down as well. Once the date is named at which the Agency takes over the ownership of these assets, it has only one function, which is to sell them as quickly as possible, and most likely under the prompting of the Minister of Supply.
Many of these things may not materialise. It may be that, when the appointed day comes, the industry will still be in a thriving state, and may still have a demand for all its products at prices which have obtained, and that it should not be sold, in which case there is no harm in submitting the argument that the appointed day should be decided by affirmative Resolution. If, on the other hand, there has been this decline in the general prosperity of the industry, and a consequential decline, possibly a catastrophic decline, in the prices which consumers are prepared to pay for the products of the steel industry, this House surely has the right to say, "We do not think that it is wise at this time to put this industry on a market which is bad; we prefer to hold it." The only way in which that can be done is by postponing the appointed day, which is the reason we are asking the Committee to retain this power.
We oppose this sale, but if the sale is to take place, then we insist that it should take place in the best possible conditions from the point of view of the community as a whole. We must emphasise—and this must be brought home to the people generally—that it is the property of the people of Britain which is being sold. These blast furnaces, rolling mills and all the complications of the steel industry now belong to the British people, and this industry is being sold out of a co-operative and corporate community into the hands of certain individuals.
It is the responsibility of the House of Commons, in the supervision of these things, to see that we get the best possible bargain for the people we represent. If hon. Gentlemen opposite were selling their own property, they would choose very carefully the time at which they placed it on the market. They


would bear very carefully in mind the conditions at the time, and that is what we have the right to do as a House of Commons. By refusing to grant the Minister power to select a particular appointed day, we can say, in effect, "We believe the timing is wrong; we believe that the policy is wrong, but that your timing is making it even worse, and therefore we refuse to grant that power."
I wish to turn for a moment to the composition of the Board and the effect of the date of the appointed day upon the Board. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will nominate to this Board men of independent view, probity, judgment and character who are able to stand on their own feet and argue on behalf of the trust placed in them. If he gets individuals of that kind on the Board, one of the first things they are going—

The Chairman: Does not that matter arise on the next Clause?

Mr. Fienburgh: I am sorry. The point I am trying to make now is that I fear that the appointed day, coming so quickly and being outside the purview of the House, may reduce the power of the people appointed to that Board to make representations on the ground that they have not sufficient powers to carry out the task entrusted to them. It is a point which I suggest the House would want to have in mind in deciding the appointed day.
If, as I fear, the gentlemen appointed to the Board find themselves faced with unlimited responsibilities and practically no authority, with unlimited duties and practically no powers, then it would be proper for the House to have, and right that the House should have, the power to say to the Minister, "We are not confident that the powers given to the Board as constituted really give them the chance adequately to carry out the task which they are being asked to undertake."
Therefore, it would be proper for us to argue that, if they are to be given this tremendous construction job to do, at least the appointed day should be deferred until such time as they have available the tools with which to do it. I find, Sir Charles, that in explaining to you why I wanted to make the point, I

have made the point, which was quite unintentional on my part.
I now suggest that once they assume authority, they will find themselves with no power of inspection of the property and plant, because one of the Minister's Amendments has effectively curtailed their power. They would have no power to enforce re-organisation and development, no power to inspect the books of the Iron and Steel Federation, which I suggest is a very important power, and no power to prevent works from closing down. They may choose to say, "The Government have set us an utterly impossible task." Therefore, the House should have the right in those circumstances to say, "This appointed day is wrong." But unless the Committee agrees to this Amendment, I fear that the House will be unable to exercise that power at any time.
A further point which I adduce in support of the argument is that during the past few months since the publication of the White Paper, we have already seen a gradual crystallisation of opinion in opposition to certain Clauses of the Bill on the part of several trade associations, particularly those which are now to be brought into the ambit of general supervision whereas previously they were completely unsupervised. One important thing is that though the Minister may congratulate himself on having received some qualified agreement from some of the trade associations, we are now finding that the constituents of those trade associations, the individual small firms, are claiming that they have been inadequately consulted, and that the representations supposedly made on their behalf do not adequately represent their point of view.
6.45 p.m.
I am sure that hon. Gentlemen opposite, who are always so keen to ensure the right of the small producer to be heard, would feel that the House should retain within its control the power of decision over the appointed day so that they can be quite sure in their own minds that the proper process of formulation of opinion has been undertaken throughout the whole of the trade associations and industries concerned.
My last point is one which has already been touched upon. It may be that as the year runs to its close, we may face the possibility of a General Election.


Once again, unless the House retains power of control over the appointed day, it would be quite possible for the Minister arbitrarily to fix an appointed day irrespective of the forthcoming General Election which we, and particularly the general mass of the people of this country, hope will be very soon indeed. I think it is almost certain, in those circumstances, that the Minister might feel that the sands of time were running rather low—

Mr. John Hynd: The time of Sandys.

Mr. Fienburgh: —and might therefore be rather precipitous in nominating the day.
But the final point—and this is the main point of the whole of our case and cannot be over-emphasised—is that it is the property of the taxpayers of Britain which it is now proposed to sell, and we demand that the House shall have the right to exercise a decision on the timing of that sale so that, even though we may think the Government are wrong in selling the property, we may retain the power to see that what this stupid Measure provides for is undertaken at the best possible time in order to mitigate some of the irresponsibility contained in it.

Mr. Frederick Willey: I shall be very brief, because I can see that the Minister is anxious to intervene, and I am sure that as a good House of Commons man he is going to accept this Amendment. My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Fienburgh) has made a very good case in substance for the Government giving way to the Opposition on these Amendments. I think there is a good case in substance for saying that the element of timing is important and that due regard should be paid to it, but I want to make one or two other points.
The step which the Minister will be taking under this Bill will be a very important constitutional step. It will be executing, without a very full discussion, a public Corporation so that it ceases to exist, a public Corporation which this House created. I think that is something which the House is entitled to have an opportunity to discuss, and I should have thought any Member of this House would concede that. We are not asking for

tedious discussion on numerous occasions, but only that this matter shall be properly discussed by the House.
The Amendment is also asking that this great public Corporation, whether we agree with it or not, and whether we agree with its creation or not, shall, in being liquidated, know that it is being treated with due and proper respect, and that this House shall have an opportunity to express its point of view upon the manner in which it has carried out the responsibilities put upon it.
All these matters would be proper matters to discuss on an occasion such as this if the House had the opportunity of so doing. If the Minister resists these Amendments, it will be because he wants to avoid giving the House that opportunity. I think that would be merely discourteous to the public Corporation and unfair to the House. Again, as my hon. Friend has said, this Amendment would allow the Minister time to think again. There would be a due interval, and before the Corporation was liquidated the Minister would have an opportunity of considering the various points of view.
I do not want to say very much on the question whether this should be the subject of negative or affirmative procedure. I do not want to express a very strong point of view because I have the honour to be a member of the Select Committee which is at present considering these matters. I would only remind the right hon. Gentleman that if he looks at the precedents of what was said by his right hon. and hon. colleagues when they were on this side of the Committee, he will find that they were invariably in favour of the affirmative procedure. This is not, however, a material point in this context, and from the point of view of the practical convenience of the House of Commons I think that it would make very little difference.
But here, obviously, the procedure should be an affirmative procedure, and therefore I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will be true to the reputation which he has generally of being a good House of Commons man and will say that, in spite of advice from his officials, which is invariably the same, this is an occasion on which the House should have the proper opportunity to express itself. I hope, therefore, that he will tell the


Committee shortly that he has resisted his Departmental officials, that he has stood up to them and has said, "All Ministers have this advice, but on this occasion I am going to accede to what would be the general wish of hon. Members if they expressed themselves as Members."

Mr. Sandys: Before I reply, I wonder whether I might ask you, Sir Charles, for the purposes of clarification, whether you are accepting both of these Amendments or only the first Amendment?

The Chairman: I have called the first which has been moved. I think that it would be the wish of the Committee to discuss the Amendment which has been moved, with the Amendment to add a subsection (5) at the end of line 21; but I was not proposing to call that Amendment, because it is really out of place and ought to be on Clause 29.

Mr. Sandys: Will there be any discussion of it on Clause 29?

The Chairman: I shall not do any discussing, but I cannot stop others.

Mr. Sandys: I am in rather a difficulty, because I do not want to discuss the matter twice over. If I am to understand that hon. Members opposite intend to put down that Amendment on Clause 29, I will reserve myself to deal with it then. Clause 29 deals with various negative and affirmative Resolutions required to deal with the different Orders under the Bill, and therefore it seems that the discussion on Clause 29 is the right place to deal with this specific point. If I understand that hon. Members opposite intend to put that Amendment down again, for they evidently attach importance to it, I think that it would be more satisfactory if I replied when we come to that point. I therefore propose to deal with the Amendment to page 2, line 10.
I do not think that the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Fienburgh), who moved this Amendment, said much about it. He dealt with the broader issues in the other Amendment. But, as drafted, the Bill requires only a simple direction, that is to say, a notification by the Minister. This applies in particular to the point of the possible extension of the life of the Corporation

beyond a period of one month. As the Bill stands, the Corporation has one month in which to complete its accounts before it is wound up.
We do not wish there to be any indecent haste in winding up the affairs of the Corporation. The men involved have been discharging their duties with great loyalty and with great perseverance during this period, in accordance with the 1949 Act. That there should be any discourtesy towards them would be the last thing in the world that we would wish. I can assure the Committee that, should the Corporation say to me that they need a little longer to complete their accounts—which is their only function after the appointed day—I shall not refuse them the simple courtesy of giving them adequate time to complete their work.
As the Bill is now drafted, the extension of the life of the Corporation for this purpose requires only a simple direction by the Minister. If this Amendment is adopted—and I am not referring to what would happen if the other Amendment were adopted—it will require a Statutory Order which could be annulled by Prayer in either House of Parliament. I hardly imagine that hon. Members opposite will wish to pray against the prolongation of the life of the Corporation, which after all is their own child, for a few weeks to enable them to wind up their accounts.
But if hon. Members opposite want the Government to embody their assurance in legislation to make quite sure that a Conservative Government will not unduly prolong the life of a nationalised Corporation, I am quite prepared to meet the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. F. Willey) who asks me to be a good House of Commons man. Speaking for my hon. Friends and myself we have been anxious, and shall be throughout, that this Bill shall be as far as possible an agreed Measure. In those circumstances we readily accept the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed. "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

Mr. G. R. Strauss: We do not propose to discuss this Clause, because it really


would be a repetition of the discussion which we had on Second Reading of the Bill. It must be assumed that we disagree with the contents of the Clause wholeheartedly, and we are looking forward to the day when we can repeal the Clause and the rest of the Bill. In order

to indicate our opposition, we must content ourselves at the moment with voting against the Clause.

Question put.

The Committee divided: Ayes. 253: Noes, 232.

Division No. 64.]
AYES
[7.0 p.m.


Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)
Fort, R.
Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)


Amory, Heathcoat (Tiverton)
Foster, John
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh


Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.
Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)
McAdden, S. J.


Arbuthnot, John
Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe &amp; Lonsdale)
McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S


Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)
Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir David Maxwell
Macdonald, Sir Peter


Assheton, Rt. Hon. F. (Blackburn, W.)
Galbraith, Rt. Hon. T. D. (Pollok)
McKibbin, A. J.


Astor, Hon. J. J.
Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)
McKie, J. H. (Galloway)


Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.
Garner-Evans, E. H.
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John


Baldwin, A. E.
George, Rt. Hon. Maj. G. Lloyd
Maclean, Fitzroy


Barber, Anthony
Glyn, Sir Ralph
MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)


Barlow, Sir John
Godber, J. B.
Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)


Baxter, A. B.
Gomme-Duncan, Col. A
Maitland, Comdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)


Beach, Maj. Hicks
Gough, C. F. H.
Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)


Beamish, Maj. Tufton
Gower, H. R.
Manningham-Buller, Sir. R. E.


Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Graham, Sir Fergus
Markham, Major S. F.


Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Gridley, Sir Arnold
Marlowe, A. A. H.


Bennett, F. M. (Reading, N.)
Grimond, J.
Marples, A. E.


Bennett, Sir Peter (Edgbaston)
Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
Marshall, Sir Sidney (Sutton)


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Maude, Angus


Bennett, William (Woodside)
Harden, J. R. E.
Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C


Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Hare, Hon. J. H.
Medlicott, Brig. F


Birch, Nigel
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.)
Mellor, Sir John


Bishop, F. P.
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Molson, A. H. E.


Black, C. W.
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Morrison, John (Salisbury)


Boothby, R. J. G
Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Macclesfield)
Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.


Bossom, A. C.
Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)
Nabarro, G. D. N.


Bowen, E. R.
Hay, John
Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)


Boyle, Sir Edward
Heald, Sir Lionel
Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)


Braine, B. R.
Heath, Edward
Noble, Cmdr. A. H. P.


Braithwaite, Lt.-Cdr. G. (Bristol, N.W.)
Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Nugent, G. R. H.


Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)
Higgs, J. M. C.
Oakshott, H. D.


Brooman-White, R. C.
Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)
O'Neill, Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)


Bullock, Capt. M.
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.


Bullus, Wing Commander E. E
Hirst, Geoffrey
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.


Burden, F. F. A.
Holland-Martin, C. J
Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)


Butcher, Sir Herbert
Hollis, M C.
Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian (Weston-super-Mare)


Campbell, Sir David
Hope, Lord John
Osborne, C.


Carr, Robert
Hopkinson, Rt. Hon. Henry
Partridge, E.


Carson, Hon. E.
Horobin, I. M.
Peake, Rt. Hon. O.


Cary, Sir Robert
Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence
Perkins, W. R. D.


Channon, H
Howard, Greville (St. Ives)
Peto, Brig. C. H. M.


Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)
Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)
Peyton, J. W. W.


Cole, Norman
Hulbert, Wing Cdr. N. J.
Pickthorn, K. W. M.


Colegate, W. A.
Hurd, A. R.
Pilkington, Capt. R. A.


Conant, Maj. F. J. E.
Hutchinson, Sir Geoffrey (Ilford, N.)
Pitman, I. J.


Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert
Hutchison, Lt.-Com. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)
Powell, J. Enoch


Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M.
Raikes, Sir Victor


Cranborne, Viscount
Hylton-Foster, H. B. H.
Rayner, Brig. R


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Remnant, Hon. P


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Jennings, R.
Renton, D. L. M.


Crouch, R. F.
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Roberts, Peter (Heeley)


Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)
Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)
Robertson, Sir David


Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)
Jones, A. (Hall Green)
Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)


Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)
Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.
Robson-Brown, W.


Davidson, Viscountess
Kaberry, D.
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)


Deedes, W. F.
Keeling, Sir Edward
Roper, Sir Harold


Digby, S. Wingfield
Kerr, H. W.
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard


Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Lambert, Hon. G.
Russell, R. S.


Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.
Lambton, Viscount
Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.


Donner, P. W.
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Salter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur


Doughty, C. J. A.
Langford-Halt, J. A.
Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord Malcolm
Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.
Savory, Prof. Sir Douglas


Drayson, G. B.
Leather, E. H. C.
Scott, R. Donald


Dugdale, Rt. Hon. Sir T. (Richmond)
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.


Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.
Legh, P. F. (Pelersfieid)
Shepherd, William


Eccles, Rt. Hon. D. M.
Linstead, H. N.
Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)


Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Llewellyn, D. T.
Smithers, Sir Waldron (Orpington)


Erroll, F. J.
Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)


Fell, A.
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)
Snadden, W. McN.


Finlay, Graeme
Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.
Spearman, A. C. M.


Fisher, Nigel
Longden, Gilbert
Speir, R. M.


Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.
Low, A. R. W.
Spens, Sir Patrick (Kensington, S.)


Fletcher-Cooke, C.
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)
Stevens, G. P.




Steward, W. A. (Woolwich, W.)
Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.
Webbe, Sir H. (London &amp; Westminster)


Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)
Turner, H. F. L.
Wellwood, W.


Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.
Turton, R. H.
Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)


Storey, S.
Tweedsmuir, Lady
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Strauss, Henry (Norwich. S.)
Vane, W. M. F.
Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)


Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)
Vosper, D. F.
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


Sutcliffe, Sir Harold
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)
Wills, G.


Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (W. Marylebone)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Teeling, W.
Walker-Smith, D. C.
Wood, Hon. R.


Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. P. L. (Hereford)
Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)
York, C.


Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)
Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)



Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, W.)
Watkinson, H. A.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:




Mr. Drewe and Mr. Redmayne.




NOES


Adams, Richard
Gibson, C. W.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, S.)


Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)
Glanville, James
Mort, D. L.


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Gooch, E. G.
Moyle, A.


Anderson, Alexander (Motherwell)
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Mulley, F. W.


Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)
Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale)
Murray, J. D.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Arthur (Wakefield)
Nally, W.


Awbery, S. S.
Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J


Bacon, Miss Alice
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Oldfield, W. H.


Baird, J.
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Oliver, G. H.


Balfour, A.
Hale, Leslie
Oswald, T.


Bartley, P.
Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Padley, W. E.


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Hall, John T. (Gateshead, W.)
Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)


Bence, C. R.
Hamilton, W. W.
Palmer, A. M. F.


Benn, Wedgwood
Hannan, W.
Pannell, Charles


Beswick, F.
Hardy, E. A.
Pargiter, G. A.


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Hargreaves, A.
Paton, J.


Bing, G. H. C.
Harrison, J. (Nottingham, E)
Pearson, A.


Blackburn, F.
Hastings, S.
Pearl, T. F.


Blenkinsop, A.
Hayman, F. H.
Popplewell, E.


Boardman, H.
Healey, Denis (Leeds, S.E.)
Porter, G.


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G
Herbison, Miss M.
Price, Joseph T. (Westhoughton)


Bowles, F. G.
Hewitson, Capt. M.
Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)


Brockway, A. F.
Hobson, C. R.
Proctor, W. T.


Brook, Dryden (Halifax)
Holmes, Horace (Hemsworth)
Pryde, D. J.


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Houghton, Douglas
Pursey, Cmdr. H.


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)
Rankin, John


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Reeves, J.


Burton, Miss F. E.
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Reid, Thomas (Swindon)


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Reid, William (Camlachie)


Callaghan, L. J.
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Richards, R.


Carmichael, J.
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Castle, Mrs. B. A
Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Champion, A. J.
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Chapman, W. D.
Janner, B.
Ross, William


Chetwynd, G. R.
Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E


Clunie, J.
Jeger, George (Goole)
Short, E. W.


Coldrick, W.
Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford)
Shurmer, P. L. E.


Collick, P. H.
Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)
Silverman, Julius (Erdington)


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Jones, David (Hartlepool)
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Cove, W. G.
Jones, Frederick Elwyn (West Ham, S.)
Simmons, C. J.(Brierley Hill)


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Slater, J.


Crosland, C. A. R.
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)


Cullen, Mrs. A.
Keenan, W.
Snow, J. W.


Daines, P.
Kenyon, C.
Sorensen, R. W.


Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Darling, George (Hillsborough)
King, Dr. H. M.
Sparks, J. A.


Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)
Kinley, J.
Steele, T.


Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)


de Freitas, Geoffrey
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.


Deer, G.
Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)
Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)


Delargy, H. J.
Lindgren, G. S.
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.


Dodds, N. N.
MacColl, J. E.
Sylvester, G. O.


Donnelly, D. L.
McGhee, H. G.
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John (W. Bromwich)
McInnes, J.
Taylor, John (West Lothian)


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
McLeavy, F.
Taylor, Rt. Hon. Robert (Morpeth)


Edwards, John (Brighouse)
MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)
Thomas, David (Aberdare)


Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
McNeil, Rt. Hon. H.
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
Mainwaring, W. H.
Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)


Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Thomson, George (Dundee. E.)


Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)


Fernyhough, E.
Mann, Mrs. Jean
Thurtle, Ernest


Fienburgh, W.
Manuel, A. C.
Timmons, J.


Finch, H. J.
Mellish, R. J.
Tomney, F.


Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)
Messer, F.
Turner-Samuels, M.


Follick, M.
Mikardo, Ian
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


Foot, M. M.
Mitchison, G. R.
Viant, S. P.


Forman, J. C.
Monslow, W.
Watkins, T. E.


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Moody, A. S.
Webb, Rt. Hon. M. (Bradford, C.)


Freeman, Peter (Newport)
Morley, R.
Weitzman, D.


Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.
Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)
Wells, Percy (Faversham)







Wells, William (Walsall)
Willey, F. T.
Winterbottom, Richard(Brightside)


West, D. G.
Williams, David (Neath)
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Wheeldon, W. E.
Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)
Wyatt, W. L.


Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W
Williams Ronald (Wigan)
Yates, V. F.


Wigg, George
Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)
Younger, Rt. Hon. K


Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.
Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)



Wilkins, W. A.
Winterbottom, Ian (Nottingham, C.)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:




Mr. Bowden and Mr. J. Johnson.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2.—(THE IRON AND STEEL BOARD.)

Mr. George Darling: I beg to move, in page 2, line 25, after the first "be," to insert:
constituted not less than six months before the appointed day.
This is a simple but very necessary Amendment and one that we had hoped the Minister would accept; but his statement, earlier today, that he proposes to go ahead with what we regard as indecent haste in these matters shows very clearly that he will not accept it.
My hon. Friends, speaking on other Amendments, have put forward the case for delaying action in some of these matters and I do not propose to go over that ground again, except to say that we take a very grave view of the Minister's statement that the period that would elapse between the Royal Assent and the appointed day would be a matter of weeks rather than months. That seems to indicate that the period between the passing of the Act and the naming of the appointed day would be something less than seven weeks—if the Minister's words mean what they say—and we think that that is most indecent haste.
In view of that fact, this Amendment becomes rather more important. One month after the appointed day the Corporation ceases to exist unless, as the Minister mentioned on the previous Amendment, he grants the Corporation an extension for the purpose of winding up their affairs; but within that month, or whatever the period may be, the Corporation have got to wind up their affairs. prepare a final statement of accounts, and so on, and that is quite a formidable job. While that is going on, on the appointed day the new Board takes over in a great hurry.
There is, therefore, a period of only one month for an effective transfer of the main powers of the Corporation to the new Board, and with very little chance of previous preparation; because, as the

Minister has said, the period between the passing of the Act and the appointed day is to be only a matter of weeks. When we consider the magnitude of the job that is to be done, I am sure we shall all agree that the period that is allowed to the Board to get into their stride and to look around and decide what is to be done is all too short.
As we shall point out when we come to other Amendments, the Board have very little power to supervise and control the industry—the word "supervision" is a bit of window-dressing all the way through the Bill—but they have extensive duties to perform. Their duties include the exercise of general supervision over the industry
with a view to promoting the efficient, economic and adequate supply of iron and steel under competitive conditions, and of keeping under review its productive capacity. …
All that amounts to a whole series of extensive duties which the Board will be called upon to perform. Whereas the old Board were only concerned with the prime producers of iron and steel, the new Board's ambit is to be much wider.

Mr. Low: What does the hon. Gentleman mean by "the old Board"?

Mr. Jack Jones: The stop-gap Board.

Mr. Darling: Yes, the Forbes Board.
So far as we can calculate, something like 2,400 firms will be involved. Apart from anything else, the immense administrative task of bringing all the many firms that were left out of the nationalisation scheme into the ambit of the new Board will be formidable. We should like to know why the Minister proposes to be so hasty in this matter. What are the reasons? We think that a much longer period—the six months which has been suggested in the Amendment—would provide for a much smoother change over and would make for a more efficient operation on the part of the new Board.
I hope that the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary will forgive us if we on these benches see in this indecent haste something rather sinister. When the


Board is set up, they will clearly include representatives or members of the leading firms in the British Iron and Steel Federation. They will be the people on the Board with an intimate knowledge of the iron and steel industry. There will be, as the Minister has said, representatives of steel consumers. Who they will be, what their capacities and experience will be we do not know; but at the beginning the effective members of the Board concerned with the supervision of the iron and steel industry and with the performance of this wide range of duties will be representatives of the Iron and Steel Federation.
7.15 p.m.
The Minister's rather curious announcement earlier, that he would not make any commitments about appointments to the new Board before the Bill received the Royal Assent—a bungled statement, if I may say so; he was caught on the hop—indicates to me that he has already thought of some tentative arrangements about representatives from the British Iron and Steel Federation being on the Board, and has decided who they shall be.
If the Board as a whole—not just the representatives of the British Iron and Steel Federation—are not to have time to look around and see what arrangements they can make for the proper performance of their duties, the Board will be in a situation in which the effective control of this industry will pass completely into the hands of those representatives of the Federation, because the other members will have no chance to make any alternative arrangements to those that will be made by the people who have an intimate knowledge of the industry.
In any case, the Board will have to rely upon Steel House for technical services, information services and for the whole of the background of the work to be performed, and, therefore, Steel House will be completely in control of the Board. This may be the intention of the Government, but it will be manifestly unfair to the other members of the Board who do not represent Steel House. This haste is altogether wrong. The new Board should have time to look round and prepare a smooth take-over from the Corporation to the new system of supervision.
I suppose that there will be trade union representation. In any case, I do not

suppose that the trade unions will behave as Steel House behaved towards the Corporation; we have every right to expect a higher standard of public behaviour from the trade unions. They ought to be given a chance to look round and see whether they can make any alternative arrangements to those made by the representatives of the Federation for the carrying out of the Board's duties, before they are called upon to carry out their legal duties. The Minister ought to reconsider this matter, and, in the interests of members of the Board other than the direct representatives of the steel industry, accept this Amendment.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Supply (Mr. A. R. W. Low): I think it will be for the convenience of the Committee if I intervene now because, as the hon. Members will appreciate, the point covered by this Amendment is very similar to, if not almost exactly the same as, the point covered by the first Amendment which we have discussed. I do not think I need add anything on the major issue to what my right hon. Friend said in reply to that Amendment.
I ought to clear up two small points that were raised by the hon. Member for Hillsborough (Mr. Darling). He said that the Board of 1946–49—the Forbes Board—were concerned with a smaller range of the industry. That is quite incorrect, as I thought was made clear on the Second Reading. They were, in fact, concerned with this range plus a few other activities which are not incorporated in the Bill. I hope the hon. Gentleman will accept that from me, because that point was made once or twice during the Second Reading, and I hope that we shall hear no more of it.

Mr. Darling: The hon. Gentleman realises, of course, that that does not invalidate my argument that changing over from the supervising of the present 92 firms to something like 2,400 firms will be a big administrative task.

Mr. Low: It does not invalidate that part of the argument, but it invalidates the argument which related to the strength of the Board.
The second point which I would make—and my right hon. Friend made it quite clearly—is that there is nothing sinister behind the Government's attitude to the Amendment. I must make this absolutely clear, so that there shall be no


doubt about it; there is no bargain or anything else to do with Steel House in this matter. I thought it was made clear by my right hon. Friend and myself during the Second Reading; there is no question of Steel House being in control of the Board. That has been made clear this afternoon by what has been said about the composition of the Board.
Having made those two points I ask the Committee to reject the Amendment for the same reasons for which it rejected the first Amendment on the Order Paper today.

Mr. Darling: I certainly do not accept the statement that it has nothing to do with Steel House and that the Government have done no bargaining with Steel House. I am sure they have. The thing smells of Steel House all the way through.
May I put this point to the Parliamentary Secretary? Does he think it fair to issue invitations to representatives of the steel consumers and of the trade unions without giving them an opportunity to look around to decide what they should do before they are called upon to assume their full duties?

Mr. Sandys: I am sorry that I was out of the Chamber for a few minutes. I hear talk about bargains with Steel House and I want to reinforce what my hon. Friend has said. There is not one vestige of truth in any such suggestion. When my hon. Friend gives an assurance and makes a statement of that kind I hope that hon. Members opposite, and hon. Members in all parts of the Committee, will not challenge the honesty of what has been said.

Mr. G. R. Strauss: As the wider point has been raised—I shall not pursue it at the moment—may I say that we accept that there has been no formal bargain with Steel House; but surely the right hon. Gentleman does not expect hon. Gentlemen on this side of the Committee to believe that there have been no informal discussions with leading industrialists, including leading people of Steel House, during the last year or the last six months, about the future of the steel industry. They are all in the same political party and have the same political view.
I do not believe that those discussions have not taken place. I accept that

there has been no clear-cut and definite bargain, but, of course, there have been informal discussions with the right hon. Gentleman and the Prime Minister and his friends, with leading industrialists in the steel industry and with other people. It would be incredible if leaders of this industry had had no discussions on the future of the industry with leading Members of the Government.

Mr. Jack Jones: May I make this suggestion to the Minister? We accept the assurance that there has been no bargain with Steel House. But, like my right hon. Friend, I would not accept that there have been no informal discussions. If there have not been informal discussions, then the case for the Amendment is strengthened. If no preparatory work has been done in connection with this vast take-over, that strengthens our argument for time during which these discussions can take place. If the Minister is suggesting that there have been no informal discussions and no preparatory work to pave the way for these vast additional changes, surely that is evidence, given by the Minister, of the necessity for the Amendment. Having given this evidence, I suggest that the Minister should think again and, in the light of his own argument, accept the Amendment.

Mr. R. Jennings: Was not the Minister replying to the charge that there had been bargains made with Steel House? That was the point of his answer.

Mr. Darling: On a point of explanation. The word "bargain" was not used by me, but by the Parliamentary Secretary. What I said—and I repeat it—was that the Minister must have in his mind some idea of the representatives of the steel industry he will select or the kind of representatives he wishes to put on the Board. He may have had tentative talks with Steel House about that. There is nothing sinister in that part of the procedure. My reference to the sinister part of the arrangement will be seen when the right hon. Gentleman reads HANSARD tomorrow.

Mr. Sandys: I think we are quite out of order, but this important point has been raised and I should like to say categorically that I have not discussed


with Steel House a single name of anybody who might be on the Board. It is as well to say that.

Mr. Darling: I accept that.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Peter Roberts: I beg to move, in page 2, line 30, to leave out "seven nor more than eleven," and to insert "nine nor more than fourteen."
The object of the Amendment, which is in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Hallam (Mr. Jennings), is to increase the number of members who may be nominated to the Board. As the Bill stands, the minimum is seven and the maximum is 11, and the Amendment suggests that the minimum should be increased to nine and the maximum to 14. We believe that the Minister will need to call upon a wider range of experience when he is composing the Board.
We say that because when the original Bill was being discussed in Committee, the minimum was put down as four by the right hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. G. R. Strauss) and very powerful arguments were addressed to him by my right hon. and hon. Friends that the number should be increased to six. We were discussing the whole question of the steel industry which was to be taken over under the Bill and, after the arguments had been put to the right hon. Gentleman, he accepted the figure of six.
The point I want to put to my right hon. Friend is this. Under the Bill a greater variety of industries will come under the influence of the Board. In addition, my right hon. Friend will find that to some extent consumers' interests will be taken over by consumers' representatives on the Board—and several hon. Members from both sides of the Committee have mentioned the Consumers' Council today. We find from the outset, therefore, that there will be greater and more widely varied interests to be given some place upon the Board. The Bill as drafted, increases the Board by one in each case from the present Iron and Steel Act—in other words, the Bill increases the numbers from six to seven and from 10 to 11.
As I have said, there are many interests which should find a place upon the

Board. May I give this as an instance? It is the case of the special steel producers who are more or less congregated in and around Sheffield and who have made representations, I believe to the Minister and certainly to the Parliamentary Secretary, that their contribution to the steel industry is one of quality and price, not necessarily one of tonnage. There is a feeling that if decisions are taken purely on a tonnage basis, their interests may not be represented to the full extent which might otherwise be the case. As hon. Members know, there has always been a conflict between the people producing bulk steel, the cheaper grades of steel, and those who are producing high grade steel, crucible and electric arc steel of a very fine quality. I believe that there should be places upon the Board for representatives of that section of the industry.
7.30 p.m.
I am not asking my right hon. Friend at this stage to give any indication, as he said he would not, of what his intentions are regarding the composition of the Board, but I feel that without this provision to raise the numbers, it may well be that it will be difficult for my right hon. Friend to find places for the interests I am mentioning. Therefore, I feel that he will be doing himself a service, and will find it very much easier at a later date when he has to deal with the conflicting interests of a great number of industries and a great number of consumers, if he has a Board with a maximum of 14 instead of a maximum of 11.
I have myself looked at the possibilities, as, no doubt, my right hon. Friend has done also. Assuming that there are three members from the trade union side, three members from the heavy steel industry side, and three from the consumers' side, then there are nine straight away, and so far that does not bring in the special steel interests, or the iron founders, or the various other interests as set out in Clause 2 (3)—the administrative, applied science, and so on.
Therefore, I suggest to my right hon. Friend that he should consider this Amendment favourably. I believe that it will help him. I am quite certain that it will give encouragement to the special steel producers in Sheffield and elsewhere,


and also to those who will be representing the vast consumer interests, which, of course, will have to be taken into account, if my right hon. Friend accepts the Amendment. I put it no higher than this, that I believe it will improve the Bill; and I hope that he will see his way to accept it.

Mr. Jennings: During the Christmas Recess I took an opportunity of meeting most of the Sheffield steel interests. [Interruption.] There are two hon. Members opposite who represent Sheffield constituencies, and I should have thought that they would have been in support of this Amendment and in support of the Sheffield steel industry, at any rate. I feel that the special steel manufacturers in Sheffield represent a particular aspect of the industry and should have some representation.
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Heeley (Mr. P. Roberts), I am not asking my right hon. Friend categorically to say he will give them representation, but I should like him to consider that these are people who have a very high-priced type goods, very high-priced export markets and export trade. I support this Amendment in the hope that my right hon. Friend will give due consideration to the particular types of industries that we have in Sheffield. I had a great opportunity during the Recess to meet them all, and to hear about their special difficulties, and I feel that by this Amendment we should be doing a good thing by increasing the number of those represented and providing for better representation on the Board.

Mr. Mulley: As a Member for one of the Sheffield constituencies. I should like to say that I give my full support to the object that the hon. Gentlemen opposite have in mind, which is to see that the very important Sheffield steel interests are represented on the Board. but I should not have thought it necessary to have moved such an Amendment, because I cannot conceive of a Minister of Supply who could set up a Board without paying due regard to the important aspects of the industry in Sheffield. However. I am prepared to take the word of hon. Gentlemen opposite. After all, they know their Minister better than I do, perhaps, and if they have anxiety that the interests of Sheffield will not be taken care of by the Minister, I shall be glad to support

this Amendment and to take part, in support of it, in a Division. if one is necessary.

Mr. Jennings: The object of the Amendment is to see that the Minister's attention is specifically drawn to this important matter, and then to leave it to him to accept the Amendment or not.

Mr. Mulley: I am rather surprised that the hon. Gentleman is already in retreat before he has heard the Minister's reply. However. I assure him that we on this side of the Committee are anxious. as I personally believe the Minister also is, to see that the industry in Sheffield is properly represented. I would remind the Committee that, so far as the value of the steel output of this country is concerned, although Sheffield's output represents in tonnage only a small percentage, Sheffield's output in value is equal to that of the rest of the steel industry in the country. I think that when I say that there should be no need for any Amendment to see that Sheffield is properly represented.
There is another question relating to this point. I ask the Minister whether the purpose of the Board is to be a representative Board, not only in the sense that this section or that is represented on it, but in the sense that it is going to be a real Board to supervise the whole industry.

Mr. Douglas Johnston: I should like in a sentence or two to support this Amendment, and I do so for the reason that I hope that the Minister will at the same time consider the possibility of getting someone from the Scottish steel industry and the Scottish steel consumers on the Board. I do not ask him to give any undertaking, but I ask him to consider this Amendment so that the possibility of including those persons may be in the Bill.

Mr. Sandys: It is a rare occasion on this Bill when we have such unanimous support for the Amendment from all parts of the Committee. It would be, I think, altogether ungrateful not to accede to the wishes of the Committee. One hon. Member after another, in proposing and supporting this Amendment, has said that he did not wish to press me in any way to commit myself as to the composition of the Board. I have no thought of committing myself in any way on the


composition of the Board and I ask hon. Members not to misinterpret my intentions in accepting this Amendment. I am not giving any undertaking whatsoever to any interest.
One hon. Member said that it was not really necessary for the Committee to draw the attention of the Minister of Supply to the importance of Sheffield in the steel industry. I am accepting this Amendment because, as I consider the matter, I see that, in order to get a balanced Board, we are going to need pretty well all the seats allowed for under the Bill as it now stands. I am not sure that it would be necessary to go beyond the limits of the Bill as it is now drafted, but I should be quite happy just to have the extra elbow room, of three more places on the Board. It will not, as my hon. Friend the Member for Heeley (Mr. P. Roberts) suggested, be a Board of 14. With the chairman, it will be a Board of 15. In accepting the Amendment I am giving myself a little more latitude in the composition of the Board, and I am not committing myself in any way to any particular representation in the composition of the Board.

Mr. Mulley: Before the right hon. Gentleman sits down, will he answer the general question whether he intends the Board to be representative of the industry, or whether he is going to appoint with the object of having people competent to supervise?

Mr. Sandys: I think that that is right outside this Amendment.

Mr. Lee: I understand that the Minister has taken note of our arguments on the consumer interests being represented, and I should like to point out that we do not consider that merely putting two or three consumers on the Board would be any answer to the problems we raised.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. George Chetwynd: I beg to move, in page 2, line 30, at the end, to insert:
of whom the chairman and not less than half the other members shall render whole-time service to the Board and are herein referred to as 'whole-time members'.
In spite of what the Minister says about not giving facts concerning the composition of the Board, from what he has said

so far the conception is slowly emerging to the Committee. We have put down this Amendment for two reasons. First, the Bill does not state whether the members of the Board shall be full-time or part-time, and this Amendment will give the Minister an opportunity of expressing his views about that. Secondly, although we resolutely oppose the denationalisation of the industry, we are now concerned with making the Government's proposals as workable as possible in the interests of an efficient iron and steel industry, and we deem it essential for the industry that the majority of the members of the Iron and Steel Board shall render whole-time service.
This Amendment goes to the root of the future of the industry. We have our conception of the Board as a supervisory body. We want it to be a strong, energetic active body controlling the iron and steel industry. On Second Reading we felt—and the Minister has never dispelled this feeling—that the Government's intention was to have an Iron and Steel Board which was, in fact, powerless, and was a sham to cover up a public demand for some kind of public responsibility for the industry.
We have put down this Amendment because we think that only by having full-time members can we ensure that the Board is an effective, strong instrument of control, and not merely a paper scheme designed to forestall the criticism of those who in the past have felt that, although the industry must be left in private hands, it is so important that public supervision is necessary.
We think that there should be five full-time members if the membership is at its minimum and seven full-time members if it is at its maximum, because under the Bill at present the Board has to carry out many comprehensive duties concerned with the whole system of the public supervision of this industry. It has to control prices and the development of the industry; and it has to make provision for the supply of raw materials. The The Minister himself, speaking on the Second Reading on 25th November, said:
The Board will have the duty of keeping itself informed about the industry's plans for expansion and modernisation, and of satisfying itself that they are adequate."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th November, 1952; Vol. 508, c. 270.]


That seems to go to the root, not only of our industrial position but of our defence position, because the whole of our economic and defence future rests upon the adequate nature of our steel industry. If this Board has a duty to ensure that we have an adequate steel industry, it must, in the main, be a full-time body sitting regularly doing this job.
7.45 p.m.
Clause 3 sets out the comprehensive and onerous duties of the Board. They are laid down: the Committee is familiar with them, and I need not go through them all. As well as maintaining relations with the Minister, as laid down in the Bill, the Board must also maintain relations with the Iron and Steel Federation. There may be difficulty about that. It will also have to maintain relations with a far wider field of industrial companies than the existing Corporation has to do. Mention has already been made of something like 2,400 instead of the present 92.
The Board cannot possibly hope to do this job efficiently and adequately if it operates on a part-time basis. How can a part-time member, spending, say, half the week in a private accountant's office, or in the office of a steel works, or wherever it may be, give proper attention to the nation's industry? Let it be remembered that, although the industry will no longer be nationalised. it will still be a national industry.
We insist that, in order to get an efficiently run Board a majority of the members should be full-time, so that those appointed to it will bring their experience and skill with them and be able to examine every issue from the national viewpoint, and not merely from the point of view of the individual firm of which they have been associated. The only body able to do this will be the Iron and Steel Board, and in our view it must be strong enough and independent enough to exert its influence properly. If it is to avoid being a nuisance to existing companies, or being a mere rubber stamp for the Iron and Steel Federation, it must, in the main, be a full-time board.
I am fortified in this view by the fact that the existing Corporation—which has had a tremendous job to do, but a job which in many respects may not be as big as the one the new Board will have

to do—has seen fit so far to have five of its seven members full-time and only two part-time.

Mr. Mitchison: On a point of order. We are now discussing the proposed Amendment in page 2, line 30, which has been moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton-on-Tees (Mr. Chetwynd). That is followed on the Order Paper by two further Amendments in page 2, line 45, and in page 3, line 11.
These Amendments raise a different point from that raised by the Amendment under discussion, but to some extent it is connected with it. Am I right in supposing that we shall later proceed to discuss those other two Amendments, but that I should not be out of order in, while not in any way discussing the principle, just referring to them while speaking to this Amendment?

The Deputy-Chairman: The next Amendment in page 2, line 45, will be called, and the Amendment in page 3, line 11, will be joined with it. I think it would be better to leave the discussion of those Amendments until we reach the next Amendment.

Mr. Mitchison: With great respect, I did not propose to discuss them in any way, but I am bound to refer a little to their subject matter, which is very closely connected with this Amendment. I hope that I shall not trespass on the spirit of your Ruling, Mr. Hopkin Morris; I shall certainly do my best to conform to it.
This seems to me to be an Amendment of very considerable importance. One has to consider what the Bill does, in fact, provide. It provides for a body—a fairly numerous body—consisting of a chairman, and, as matters now stand, of from nine to 14 members. We know something about it. We have been told by the Minister that the conditions postulated by the Consumers' Council will be fulfilled. There would, therefore, be one independent chairman. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will correct me if I am in any way misinterpreting him, but I understand that there will be two independent members at least, two or three members representing the consumers, and that the Minister is glad to have three additional members for a purpose which appears to be connected, at any rate, with the representation of the consumers.

Mr. Sandys: I thought that I had made it clear that I was not committing myself in any way in regard to the last Amendment which we accepted. I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman will not draw conclusions. I specifically asked that no conclusions of that kind should be drawn about the composition of the Board, and, in accepting the Amendment, I said that I did so in order that I might have a little more elbow room in general.

Mr. Mitchison: I think that the right hon. Gentleman will accept from me that I am really glad to hear that. I may have misunderstood what he said and, if so, I apologise, but I can only welcome wholeheartedly what he says now.
What we know about the Board so far is that out of its total composition, the chairman and two members will be independent and at least two members will represent the consumers' interests, because these were the conditions which were postulated by the Consumers' Council and which the Minister said would be fulfilled. The remarkable thing about the Bill is that it does not provide for a single whole-time member. The Minister may, of course, be in future the right hon. Gentleman who holds office or some other right hon. Gentleman. It rests entirely with the Minister when the appointments come up to be made or renewed, or if for any other reason, there is a vacancy, to fill the Board with part-time or whole-time members, exactly as he chooses. There is nothing in the Bill at present to prevent the Minister from appointing the chairman and 14 members, every single one of whom will be part-time.
I do not suggest that the Minister is likely to do that. I hope that, in spite of his reluctance to commit himself in public on this matter, he will be able to assure us that, at any rate, some proportion of the members will be whole-time members, and the reason I attach importance to that is this: we have just had on another Amendment an exhibition of what I can only call in the politest form and without making any kind of attack on the hon. Members who spoke on it, on this side of the Committee as well as on the other, a little bit of log rolling. It was about the representation of the Sheffield steel interests and the representation of Scottish interests. I take no objection to that, but, obviously, there

will be considerable pressure for consumers' representation on this Board.
One then has to see what the Board has to do. My right hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. G. R. Strauss) said very truly, a short time ago, that on a board of this kind, which has a definite job to do, we do not want the people who are there to represent special interests. If they are doing that, then their duty as members of the board is bound to conflict with their representation of special interests, and when they have a practical job to do, and a job of the highest national importance, it is wrong that they should have to weigh against it their duties to represent some special interest or another.
As was again rightly said—and I absolutely agree—no one would try to run a business on these lines. One does not put on an operative board of any sort people who represent one's customers, when those people are also to be concerned in running the works. I agree that in the circumstances of this case, and having regard to the fact that the right hon. Gentleman and his political friends have thrown the Consumers' Council overboard, we have to have some sort of representation of consumers generally on the Board, but I do say that they will not be the most useful members on it, and that they will be in considerable difficulty in contributing to the real work of the Board.
We have to consider what the Board is to do. As I see it, there are three possible boards. One is what I believe to be the right kind of board—that is to say, a board which will exercise a thoroughly effective supervision and control of the whole steel industry, and, if we do that, then certainly we should want a large proportion of whole-time members on it. Next comes the board offered by the Tory Party to the country at large. That is a hybrid board. It does not go as far as the board that I want, but it goes a long way beyond the Board as contemplated in the Bill. It was suggested quite definitely to the country, both before and since the last election, that there would be some effective control over the industry by the Board. The last kind of board, and the one which we have actually to consider at the moment, is the Board in the Bill.


Its general duty is merely to supervise, and its powers of control, such as they are, do not amount to control at all. They amount to the performance of a few special functions in certain special circumstances, and no more. I do not forget that the Board has also some responsibility for training, education and research, but, after all, all that falls a very long way off any effective control of the industry. If that is to be the position, let us at least see that the supervision which the Board has to exercise is effective supervision, and let us think for a moment what it is supervising.
It is not going to supervise, any more than the existing Corporation has supervised, the day to day running of these industrial companies. No one wants it to do that, but we want it to see to two things: first, that there is a national development plan for the iron and steel industry, and, when I say a national plan. I mean a plan which conforms with national interests and not merely with the particular interests of the iron and steel industry and that comparatively small number of people who have controlled it in the past and seem likely, under this Bill, to control it in the future. That is the first thing that it has to do.
The next thing which it has to do, if supervision means anything, is to see—I say no more than to see—whether particular companies and persons concerned are conforming to that national plan, or seeking their own particular interests in contradiction or in conflict with it. I cannot believe that the right hon. Gentleman will for one moment deny that that is, under the Bill, the responsibility of a supervising body, and I believe that under the Bill and under the most broad principles of Parliamentary Government it must be his responsibility to a considerable extent. If that is the position, and if that is the sort of job which the Board has to do, then I fail completely to see how anyone can carry it out properly if, at the same time, he is also engaged in other activities.
I admit that there must be room for some part-time members, and this Amendment does not propose otherwise. but, at the same time, there must be a kernel and a substantial kernel of members of the Board who will do the real running, just as do the full-time members

on other public boards. Those will have to be effective people, and it seems to me obvious that the effective kernel, if I may use the phrase again, should be at least a majority of the Board.
8.0 p.m.
Is there anything in the least unreasonable in having that put into the Bill? I think there is very good reason for inserting it. There is not only the consumers' interest, but there is something much more important than that. Who is this chairman and these full-time members to be? We know because we have been told that the chairman and two members, whether full-time or part-time, are to be independent. But what about the rest of them? I do not think, nor do my hon. Friends think, that it is possible for a man to spend his time in managing a particular unit in this industry and have the spare time to attend meetings of this Board.
I know that in this industry people come from outside in to high administrative posts. One of them was a most respected and distinguished Member of this House, but he came into the industry from outside. It has, in fact, in the past been run very largely by committees and associations on which those members had a considerable part to play. I fail to see how someone coming in from outside the industry can take part in the activities of these important committees and organisations and can properly deal with all the matters which arise from them, while at the same time taking a really effective part in this Board.
I am not suggesting that the part-time members have not had experience of one or other of the various types that are indicated in the Bill. What I am saying is that when they get on to the Board they must, if they are to be effective members, give their whole time to it. Frankly, I must say to the right hon. Gentleman that I recognise, as do all of us, that he is the responsible Minister, but he is dealing with an industry which in the past—and not the so distant past either—was run by a comparatively small number of people. These particular people have shown themselves to have—let me put it mildly—such marked views about the industry that they have refused to implement effectively the decisions of the Labour Government by entering the former Corporation. I doubt if anyone


in this Committee is really prepared to deny that that is what happened.
When we have to deal with an industry like that and with those who for that sort of reason are sometimes called the iron and steel barons or collectively, Steel House, it seems to be very important to see that, if they are to be used in this particular set-up, they should be cut well adrift from what they have been doing in the past and should give their full time to this public job. They have in this instance, at any rate, to get quite clear of the old love before they start on the new.
If the Minister is not able to accept an Amendment of this sort, the only conclusion that I can draw is that he regards the Board as so comparatively unimportant that it must take second place to Steel House and to other interests in the industry, and that he must concede to them the effective power of running it—not merely the day-to-day running of it but also the implementation of the policy contained in this Bill. I cannot believe that the Minister is prepared to get up and tell us that.
We all feel that any concession of that sort would be so contrary to the national interests, having regard particularly to the past history of the industry, that it ought not to be made. Therefore, it is only to secure on the one hand an effective Board, and, on the other, an independent Board for the tasks which it has got to perform, which even in this Bill are considered of great importance. that I support this Amendment and hope that the right hon. Gentleman will see his way to accept it.

Mr. Aubrey Jones: In view of the sweet unanimity which prevailed in the Committee on the last Amendment, it would be ungracious if no one on this side expressed at least partial agreement with what has been said on this Amendment. I agree with the hon. Member for Stockton-on-Tees (Mr. Chetwynd) that this Board should be effective. I agree with him, too, that that effectiveness is the more likely if the Board has a full-time nucleus. That far I can go with the hon. Member for Stockton-on-Tees and with the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison). The hon. and learned

Member used the word "kernel" while I suggested "nucleus," but thus far I can go with both of them. There, however, I part.
The hon. Member for Stockton-on-Tees mentioned that the present Corporation has a preponderance of full-time members. I think he said that five out of the seven were full-time members. That is true, but if one looks at the 1949 Act it will be found that nothing at all is said about full-time members. I think indeed during the Committee stage of that Act, when the suggestion of a full-time kernel or nucleus was made, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. G. R. Strauss) replied that he wished to be allowed untrammelled discretion, and suggested that the matter be left flexible.

Mr. G. R. Strauss: Speaking from recollection, I think I indicated that the majority of the Corporation would be full-timers. I certainly carried that out.

Mr. Jones: I am not differing fundamentally from the right hon. Gentleman; all I wish to do is commend to the Committee the precedent of the 1949 Act. I hope the Committee will commend to the Minister the principle of a full-time nucleus, but I think it would be far wiser to leave it to the Minister's discretion as to how exactly he carries out that principle in practice.

Mr. Lee: I hope the Minister realises that we attach the utmost importance to this Amendment. Indeed, I should have thought that he would have accepted it if he wants to maintain any sort of atmosphere of seriousness in the Bill at all. We on this side of the Committee doubt whether he ever intends that this Board should exercise any real power at all, and we shall await his reaction to this sort of Amendment. We have others along similar lines which we shall move later, but I should have thought that if he really wishes the country to believe that he is serious when he says it is necessary to exercise control over the steel industry, he would have been prepared to accept the Amendment.
I think we are entitled to say that control cannot be exercised by a Board composed of part-time people. Indeed, a short time ago, when we were discussing another Amendment, he told us quite cheerfully that the work of a body


which consisted of 18 or 19 people would be taken by these people in their stride as well as other types of work. I refer to the Consumers' Council.
We heard that it was the desire of the Government that the industry should expand its production of steel considerably, and that the Board must examine the development proposals of the various firms within the industry. If we can really envisage a Board consisting of part-time people doing that sort of work I am prepared to believe that the Minister has geniuses at his disposal and not ordinary men.
Seeing that we apparently have agreement on both sides of the Committee as to the necessity for control of the steel industry—we certainly believe that and we practised it, and we have had from the Conservative Party statements in which they said that although there should be private enterprise within the industry they also believe that it should be subject to Governmental control—I should have thought that instead of waiting for an Amendment of this sort to be moved the Minister would have incorporated within the Bill provisions to make it manifest to the country that our suspicions that the Board is to be merely a sort of rubber stamp for Steel House is not true. I therefore ask the Minister to get up and say that the proportion of five to two which my right hon. Friend observed in regard to the Steel Board will be maintained now that we are to have a change in the industry.
I do not want to repeat my argument about consumers, but I hope the Minister will see that if there is to be respect for law it must be shown to be based upon morality and justice. Can we conceive the spectacle of a number of people dropping in in time for morning coffee and having a desultory conversation for an hour or two on any subject from golf to fishing, and putting that across as the sort of control which a great industry of this kind should have?
There is no room for quibbling. The Minister owes it to the House of Commons and to the country, since his desire is to get complete control of the industry, that the industry should be capable of feeding the consumer industries with steel, and that therefore as many full-time members as we ask for—even more, I should think—will be

on the Board. Upon his acceptance of the Amendment will depend the country's reaction in deciding whether he is serious in wanting control or is merely playing with the subject in order to hand it back to Steel House.

8.15 p.m.

Mr. Sandys: The mover of the Amendment, the hon. Member for Stockton-on-Tees (Mr. Chetwynd), and the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison), who spoke after him, rightly stressed the importance of the Board's functions, and I am glad that they did so. There has been a tendency at times for the benches opposite to belittle the importance of the functions which we are entrusting to the Board. From that, they drew the conclusion that at least half the members of the Board should be full-time members. The hon. and learned Member pressed the point as hard as did the mover ot the Amendment, but he said that he attached most importance to having an assurance from the Government that at least some of the members of the Board should be whole-time because the Bill did not lay it down in any way.

Mr. Mitchison: I thought I went rather beyond that.

Mr. Sandys: The hon. and learned Gentleman made a fairly lengthy speech and he did definitely ask me whether I would at least give an assurance that there would be some whole-time members on the Board. I made it clear that I did not wish to be restricted in the selection—an important and difficult selection—of the members of the Board. I am prepared to say to the Committee here and now, because I am sure that it will not embarrass me, that it is our intention that a proportion of the Board, including the chairman, should be full-time members and that a proportion should be part-time.

Mr. Mitchison: Not less than half.

Mr. Sandys: I am giving the assurance which I am prepared to give, although it might not entirely meet the wishes of the hon. and learned Gentleman. I do not wish to commit myself, here and now, to any precise proportion or to accept an Amendment which will lay down definite arithmetical rules in the Bill. What we want—and I believe it is also the wish


of members in all parts of the Committee—is to get the best possible Board. The success of the Board will depend to a very large extent upon the standing and experience of its members and the respect which they enjoy.

Mr. Mitchison: And their integrity.

Mr. Sandys: Nobody, I hope, is questioning their integrity. There is an Amendment which comes on later upon which the question of financial interest can be more appropriately discussed. If the Minister responsible is to be able to get the best Board he must have the widest possible latitude in making his selections and must not have his hands tied.
The hon. and learned Gentleman complained that the Bill did not contain any provision which would ensure that even one single member of the Board would serve whole time. I do not know whether the hon. and learned Gentleman realises that the 1949 Act did not contain any such provision either.

Mr. Mitchison: Perhaps I might tell the right hon. Gentleman, and I thank him for allowing me to do so, that I do realise it. The 1949 Act was an entirely different matter. It was not handing the industry back to private interests, but handing it over to public control.

Mr. Sandys: Those are facts. I am glad that the hon. and learned Gentleman has stressed that the circumstances were different. The 1949 Act did not give to the Corporation the duty of supervising the industry but that of owning it and controlling it in every way. There was a case then for making quite sure that we had men on the Corporation who were going to devote sufficient time to that vastly greater responsibility of direct control and ownership of a vast industry, as distinct from general supervision with certain limited powers at vital points. If there is a case for inserting in this Bill a specific rule about the proportion of full-time members of the Board, how much stronger must have been that case in regard to the nationalisation Act of 1949?

Mr. Jack Jones: Will the Minister refresh the memory of the Committee by

reminding hon. Members that the positions which were available to be filled by the then Minister by full-time persons, had he so desired, could not be filled because those persons who were wanted and were needed would not play?

Mr. Sandys: I do not know what that has to do with the drafting of the Bill.

Mr. Jones: It has a lot to do with it.

Mr. Sandys: Any difficulties that might have arisen arose after the Bill received the Royal Assent. It is a red herring which the hon. Member has drawn across the trail.

Mr. Jones: It is a fact.

Mr. Sandys: This issue was debated in the Committee and also. I believe, on the Report stage of the previous Bill. I have looked up some of those debates, in which, naturally, the right hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. G. R. Strauss) took a prominent part. I find his arguments both convincing and convenient. He said:
I feel that the real wisdom at this stage, while we are considering the Bill is not to lay down hard and fast rules. If the right hon. Gentleman"—
I do not know who it was that he was addressing—
asks what is my conception, I reply that my present view"—
I mention this because the right hon. Gentleman raised it a moment ago—
is that there should be a number of full-time members"—

Mr. G. R. Strauss: Hear, hear.

Mr. Sandys: probably with some part-time members working alongside them.
He went on to say:
It would be quite foolish for Parliament to lay down now the exact proportions of full-time or part-time membership.…

Mr. Strauss: Hear, hear.

Mr. Sandys: On that, we are agreed. The right hon. Gentleman went on to say:
I ask the Committee not to limit the Minister in his make-up of the Corporation. to leave it flexible, to avoid rigidity at all costs. Only in that way will the Minister be able to adapt the Corporation in numbers, proportion, and balance, according to the requirements of the situation.

Mr. Jack Jones: Hear, hear.

Mr. Sandys: There is wonderful agreement on all sides. The right hon. Gentleman continued:
I am sure it would be wrong to lay down here and now what the exact proportion should be. and I therefore hope the Committee will not ask the Government to do so."—[OFFICIAL. REPORT, Standing Committee C, 9th December, 1948; c. 145–147.]
On another day the right hon. Gentleman, who spoke much on this subject, said:
I am exceedingly anxious that the Bill should be flexible. I think it is right that it should be flexible, and that it should not bind the Minister in perpetuity and force him to come back to the House with an amending Bill.
Finally, he said:
I am most anxious that there should be no statutory proportion laid down as to the number of full-time and part-time members."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee C, 14th December, 1948; c. 175.]
I do not flatter myself that I can convince the right hon. Gentleman with my arguments. but I ask him on this occasion to allow himself to be convinced by his own.

Mr. G. R. Strauss: I am fully convinced by the arguments that I put forward then. We are trying to convince the right hon. Gentleman that the arguments I then put forward were sound and correct and that he should follow the same line, but he is doing nothing of the sort. I have rarely come across a Minister who has been in charge of a Bill before the Committee, whether on the Floor of the House or upstairs, who has been so reluctant to give essential information to the Members of that Committee. It is usual for the Minister to be forthcoming by the Committee stage and to give as much information as he can about time and numbers of people concerned. The House should know by that stage of the Bill what he is about.
Today, we have found the right hon. Gentleman most reluctant to give us any information at all. I asked how long he thought it would be between the time the Bill is passed and when the appointed day is fixed. First, we had no answer whatever. We pressed him, and then finally he gave a certain answer, very reluctantly. Now, we say to him that we do not want to know the precise—

Mr. Sandys: I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman is quite fair. I gave such information as I have given in the very first speech which I made in this debate.

Mr. Strauss: If the right hon. Gentleman looks at HANSARD tomorrow, he will find that I have had to get up two or three times and press him before he would give us any information except to say that he would do it as soon as possible.
Now, we ask: "What sort of Board do you have in mind? What are your proportions likely to be?" We say that at least half should be full-time members. The right hon. Gentleman says that he cannot tell us. Apparently, he has not made up his mind. All he says is that a proportion will be full-time. Perhaps, 10 per cent. is the proportion? Is there to be one full-time person? That tells us nothing at all. We are entitled to ask the Government to tell us, but the Minister has refused to say what sort of Board he has in mind.
Is it to be a Board largely composed of full-time members? I have not looked up the previous debates, but from the extracts of my speeches which the right hon. Gentleman has just given, two things are clear. First, there was obviously an Amendment from the Conservative side asking me to lay down in statutory form some proportion of members, full-time and part-time. That was what they demanded. Therefore, if the Conservatives thought that it was desirable that there should be a statutory division of full-time and part-time people in those days, perhaps they think so today, also.
I then took the view, which I take today, that it is undesirable to lay down in statute, in perpetuity, what the proportion should be, certainly not exactly. What we say in the Amendment is that at least half of the Board should be full-time, and probably more. That is the type of Board we have in mind.
We would be quite satisfied if the Minister were to say, "I do not want to be bound in perpetuity about this Board." He need not say that, because, at the outside, the Board will last only a year or two. We would be satisfied if he were to say, "We do not want to be bound permanently by any exact number. Therefore, please withdraw the Amendment on the understanding that it is my intention to appoint a Board where most of the people will be full-time. That is what the Government intend, and that is what we will do." If the Minister says that, we will be perfectly satisfied and will withdraw the Amendment.

Mr. Simon: Would the right hon. Gentleman be content if my right hon. Friend said merely, in his own words. "a number of full-time members"?

Mr. Strauss: What does "a number" mean? Even in the words which the right hon. Gentleman has read—and I believe I made other statements about this on other occasions—it was perfectly clear that I indicated that the Board was to consist of a number of full-time members assisted by a few part-time members. Were not those the words that I used?

Mr. Sandys: Perhaps I can make it clear. The right hon. Gentleman was, clearly, saying that he would not commit himself and that he had the idea that there would be a substantial number of whole-time members. The point I was making was that the right hon. Gentleman was not prepared to commit himself to any definite proportion, and that is precisely what I cannot do now by accepting this Amendment.

8.30 p.m.

Mr. Strauss: The right hon. Gentleman is not. We are asking for a minimum. We say that there should be at least half. The right hon. Gentleman would not be committing himself to a definite proportion but to a minimum.
From the answers I gave, I think it is clear that I was saying to the Committee that the Board would consist of a number of full-time people assisted by some part-timers. Is not that a perfectly clear indication? Indeed, I should have

thought that it was a commitment on my part that the Board was to consist mainly of full-time people. Surely, if it means anything it means that. That must have been in my mind and in the minds of those who listened to the debate.

We want to know whether that is in the mind of the Minister. If he says that it is and if he asks us to withdraw the Amendment we will do so with pleasure. We maintain that a Board consisting mainly of part-timers, coming together, as the old Steel Board did, once a fortnight, and picking up what is happening and then disappearing, will be of no use whatever. If the Minister says that the bulk of the Committee—half of it or more, or roughly that figure—will consist of full-time people doing nothing but looking after the public interest and supervising this industry, we will be satisfied.

We do not want a statutory provision; but we fear that the type of Board the Minister will put up, largely consisting of part-timers, will be hopeless. We are opposed to it. We think that it is silly. If the Board is to consist, broadly speaking, of full-timers with part-timers to assist them, we are satisfied. There is nothing inconsistent in this demand and the attitude I expressed when I was Minister during the Committee stage of the earlier Bill.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 235: Noes, 250.

Division No. 65.]
AYES
(8.35 p.m.


Adams, Richard
Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Donnelly, D. L


Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)
Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Driberg, T. E. N.


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Burton, Miss F. E.
Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John (W. Bromwich)


Anderson, Alexander (Motherwell)
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S)
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.


Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)
Callaghan, L. J.
Edwards, John (Brighouse)


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R
Carmichael, J.
Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)


Awbery, S. S
Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)


Bacon, Miss Alice
Champion, A. J.
Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)


Baird, J.
Chapman, W. D
Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)


Balfour, A.
Chetwynd, G. R.
Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)


Bartley, P.
Clunie, J.
Fernyhough, E.


Bellenger, Rt. Hon, F. J.
Coldrick, W
Fienburgh, W.


Bence, C R.
Collick, P. H.
Finch, H. J.


Benn Wedgwood
Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)


Beswick, F.
Cove, W. G.
Follick, M.


Bevan, Rt. Hon A. (Ebbw Vale)
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Foot, M. M.


Bing, G. H. C.
Crosland, C. A. R.
Forman, J. C.


Blackburn, F.
Cullen, Mrs. A.
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)


Blenkinsop, A
Daines, P.
Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.


Boardman, H
Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
Gibson, C. W.


Bottomley, Rt Hon. A. G
Darling, George (Hillsborough)
Glanville, James


Bowden, H. W.
Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)
Gooch, E. G.


Bowles, F. G.
Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.


Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth
de Freitas, Geoffrey
Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Arthur (Wakefield)


Brockway, A. F.
Deer, G.
Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.


Brook, Dryden (Halifax)
Delargy, H. J.
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Dodds, N. N.
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)




Hale, Leslie
Mann, Mrs. Jean
Sorensen, R. W.


Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Manuel, A. C.
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Hall, John T. (Gateshead, W.)
Mikardo, Ian
Sparks, J. A.


Hamilton, W. W.
Mitchison, G. R.
Steele, T.


Hannan, W.
Monslow, W
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)


Hardy, E. A.
Moody, A. S.
Stokes, Rt. Hon. R. R.


Hargreaves, A.
Morley, R.
Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.


Harrison, J. (Nottingham, E.)
Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)
Strauss, Rt. Hon. Georgs (Vauxhall)


Hastings, S.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, S.)
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.


Hayman, F. H.
Mort, D. L.
Sylvester, G. 0.


Healey, Denis (Leeds, S. E.)
Moyle, A.
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Herbison, Miss M
Mulley, F. W.
Taylor, John (West Lothian)


Hewitson, Capt. M
Murray, J. D.
Taylor, Rt. Hon. Robert (Morpeth)


Hobson, C. R.
Nally, W.
Thomas, David (Aberdare)


Houghton, Douglas
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


Hudson James (Ealing, N.)
O'Brien, T.
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Oldfield, W. H.
Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)


Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Oliver, G. H.
Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)


Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Oswald, T.
Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)


Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Padley, W. E.
Thurtle, Ernest


Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Paling, Rt, Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)
Timmons, J.


Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)
Palmer, A. M. F.
Tomney, F.


Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Pannell, Charles
Turner-Samuels, M


Janner, B.
Pargiter, G. A.
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T
Paton, J.
Viant, S. P


Jeger, George (Goole)
Pearl, T. F.
Watkins, T. E


Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford)
Popplewell, E.
Webb, Rt. Hon. M. (Bradford C.)


Johnson, James (Rugby)
Porter, G.
Weitzman, D.


Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)
Price, Joseph T. (Westhoughton)
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Jones, David (Hartlepool)
Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)
Wells, William (Walsall)


Jones, Frederick Elwyn (West Ham, S.)
Proctor, W. T.
West, D. G.


Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Pryde, D. J.
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. John


Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Pursey, Cmdr. H.
Wheeldon, W. E.


Keenan, W.
Rankin, John
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W


Kenyon, G.
Reeves, J.
Wigg, George


Key, Rt. Hon. C. W
Reid, Thomas (Swindon)
Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.


King, Dr. H. M
Reid, William (Camlachie)
Wilkins, W. A.


Kinley, J.
Richards, R.
Willey, F. T.


Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Williams, David (Neath)


Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)


Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Lindgren, G. S.
Ross, William
Williams, W. H. (Droylsden)


MacColl, J. E.
Shackleton, E. A. A.
Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)


McGhee, H. G.
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


McInnes, J.
Short, E. W.
Winterbottom, Ian (Nottingham, C.)


McLeavy, F.
Shurmer, P. L. E.
Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)


MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)
Silverman, Julius (Erdington)
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


McNeill, Rt. Hon. H.
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)
Wyatt, W. L


MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)
Yates, V. F.


Mainwaring, W. H.
Slater, J.
Younger, Rt. Hon. K.


Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)



Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield E.)
Snow, J. W.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:




Mr. Pearson and Mr. Holmes.




NOES


Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)
Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)
Doughty, C. J. A.


Amory, Heathcoat (Tiverton)
Brooman-While, R. C.
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord Malcolm


Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.
Browne, Jack (Govan)
Drayson, G. B.


Arbuthnot, John
Bullock, Capt. M.
Drewe, C.


Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)
Bullus, Wing Commander E E
Dugdale, Rt. Hon. Sir T. (Richmond)


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.)
Burden, F. F. A.
Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.


Astor, Hon. J. J.
Butcher, Sir Herbert
Eccles, Rt. Hon. D. M


Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M
Campbell, Sir David
Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E


Baldwin, A. E.
Carr, Robert
Erroll, F. J


Barber, Anthony
Carson, Hon. E
Fell, A.


Barlow, Sir John
Cary, Sir Robert
Finlay, Graeme


Baxter, A. B.
Channon, H.
Fisher, Nigel


Beach, Maj. Hicks
Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)
Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.


Beamish, Maj. Tufton
Cole, Norman
Fletcher-Cooke, C.


Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Colgate, W. A.
Fort, R.


Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Conant, Maj. R. J. E
Foster, John


Bennett, F. M. (Reading, N.)
Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albart
Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe &amp;Lonsdale)


Bennett, Sir Peter (Edgbaston)
Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir David Maxwell


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Cranborne, Viscount
Galbraith, Rt. Hon. T. D. (Pollok)


Bennett, William (Woodside)
Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Garner-Evans, E. H.


Bevies, J. R. (Toxteth)
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
George, Rt. Hon. Maj. C. Lloyd


Birch, Nigel
Crouch, R. F.
Godber, J. B.


Bishop, F. P.
Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)
Gomme-Duncan, Col. A


Black, C. W.
Crowder, Petra (Ruislip—Northwood)
Gough, C. F. H.


Boothby, R. J. G
Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)
Gower, H. R.


Bossom, A. C.
Davidson, Viscountess
Graham, Sir Fergus


Bowen, E. R.
Deedes, W. F.
Gridley, Sir Arnold


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A
Digby, S. Wingfield
Grimond, J.


Boyle, Sir Edward
Dodds-Parker, A D.
Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)


Braithwaite, Lt.-Cdr. G. (Bristol, N. W.)
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.
Hall, John (Wycombe)


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W H.
Donner P. W.
Harden, J. R. E.







Hare, Hon J. H.
McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.
Roper, Sir Harold


Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.)
Macdonald, Sir Peter
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard


Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
McKibbin, A. J.
Russell, R. S.


Harvey, Air Cdre A. V. (Macclesfield)
McKie, J. H. (Galloway)
Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.


Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
Salter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur


Heald, Sir Lionel
Maclean, Fitzroy
Sandys, Rt. Hon D.


Heath, Edward
MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)
Savory, Prof. Sir Douglas


Higgs, J. M. C.
Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)
Scott, R. Donald


Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)
Macpherson, Maj. Niall (Dumfries)
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R


Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Maitland, Comdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)
Shepherd, William


Hirst, Geoffrey
Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)
Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)


Holland-Martin, C. J.
Manningham-Buller, Sir R. E.
Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter


Hollis, M. C.
Markham, Major S. F.
Smithers, Sir Waldron (Orpington)


Hope, Lord John
Marlowe, A. A. H.
Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)


Hopkinson, Rt. Hon. Henry
Marples, A. E.
Snadden, W. McN.


Horobin, I. M.
Marshall, Sir Sidney (Sutton)
Speir, R. M.


Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence
Maude, Angus
Spens, Sir Patrick (Kensington, S.)


Howard, Greville (St. Ives)
Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.
Stevens, G. P.


Hudson Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)
Medlicott, Brig. F.
Steward, W. A. (Woolwich, W.)


Hulbert, Wing Cdr. N. J.
Mellor, Sir John
Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)


Hurd, A. R.
Milson, A. H. E.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


Hutchinson, Sir Geoffrey (Ilford, N.)
Morrison, John (Salisbury)
Storey, S.


Hutchison, Lt.-Com. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)
Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.
Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)


Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M.
Nabarro, G. D. N.
Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)


Hylton-Foster, H. B. H.
Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)
Sutcliffe, Sir Harold


Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)
Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)


Jennings, R.
Noble, Cmdr. A. H. P.
Teeling, W.


Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Nugent, G. R. H.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. P. L. (Hereford)


Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)
Oakshott, H. D.
Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)


Jones, A, (Hall Green)
Odey, G. W.
Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, W.)


Joynson-Hicks. Hon. L. W.
O'Neill, Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)
Turner, H. F. L.


Kaberry, D.
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.
Turton, R. H.


Keeling, Sir Edward
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Kerr, H. W.
Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)
Vane, W. M. F


Lambert, Hon. G.
Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian (Weston-super-Mare)
Vosper, D. F.


Lambton, Viscount
Osborne, C.
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Partridge, E.
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. Marylebone)


Langford-Holt, J. A.
Peake, Rt. Hon. O
Walker-Smith, D. C.


Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.
Perkins, W. R. D.
Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)


Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H
Peto, Brig. C. H. M
Ward, Miss. I. (Tynemouth)


Legh, P. R. (Petersfield)
Pickthorn, K. W. M
Watkinson, H. A.


Linstead, H. N.
Pilkington, Capt. R. A
Webbe, Sir (London &amp; Westminister)


Llewellyn, D. T.
Pitman, I. J.
Wellwood, W.


Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Powell, J. Enoch
Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)


Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)
Profumo, J. D.
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Longden, Gilbert
Raikes, Sir Victor
Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)


Low, A. R. W.
Rayner, Brig. R.
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)
Redmayne, M.
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)
Remnant, Hon. P
Wood, Hon. R


Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Robertson, Sir David
York, C.


Renton, D. L. M.
Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)



Roberts, Peter (Heeley)
Robson-Brown, W.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


McAdden, S. J.
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)
Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith and Mr. Wills.

Mr. Jack Jones: I beg to move, in page 2, line 45, at the end, to insert:
(4) (a) Before appointing a person to be the chairman or other whole-time member of the Board the Minister shall satisfy himself that that person will have no substantial financial interest in the iron and steel industry and the Minister shall also satisfy himself from time to time with respect to the chairman and to every other whole-time member of the Board that he has no such interest;
(b) before appointing a person to be a member other than a whole-time member of the Board the Minister shall satisfy himself that that person will have no such financial or other interest as is likely to affect prejudicially the exercise or performance by him of his functions as such a member of the Board and the Minister shall also satisfy himself from time to time with respect to every such member of the Board that he has no such interest;
(c) any person who is, or whom the Minister proposes to appoint and who has consented to be, a member of the Board shall, whenever

requested by the Minister so to do, furnish to him such information as the Minister considers necessary for the performance by the Minister of his duties under this subsection.
In discussing this Amendment, I should like also to refer to the Amendment standing in the name of several of my hon. Friends, in page 3, line 11, at end, insert:
(6) A member of the Board who is in any way directly or indirectly interested in any matter proposed for the deliberation or decision of the Board shall, as soon as possible after the relevant circumstances have come to his knowledge, disclose the nature of his interest at a meeting of the Board; and the disclosure shall be recorded in the minutes of the Board, and the member shall not take any part, after the disclosure, in any deliberation or decision of the Board about that matter.
I make no apology to the Committee for suggesting that we attach considerable importance to these two Amendments. I have, of course, read what the Bill says.


When the Minister replies, he will probably tell us what the words in the Bill are intended to convey, but we want to be absolutely clear about this part of the Bill.
We have already had considerable healthy criticism and argument regarding the composition of the Board and the size of the Board. We have had demonstrations today of vested interest already wanting to climb on the bandwagon in order to take care of its own particular sector of the industry in its own particular locality. We have had arguments about whether there shall be full-time or part-time members of the Board. I respectfully suggest that, whoever are the full-time members of the Board, they should be persons who can in no way be suspected of having a financial interest arising from the carrying out of the duties of the Board.
The Board has immense duties to perform. I have read with considerable interest all the documents attached to the nationalisation and the de-nationalisation proposals, and I would remind the Committee that in the White Paper issued by the Government, no fewer than 23 paragraphs are devoted to indicating the duties of the Board. Those duties are extensive, important, and to my mind the fulcrum of this Bill. They are laid down in a few short words in this Bill, but behind those words there is, of course, a considerable volume of work to be done.
8.45 p.m.
It is not part of my task to argue at length about the Board's duties. It is my province at the moment to argue about the extent to which full-time members, if any, and part-time members shall have a personal interest in the results of the work that the Board carries out. I do not want to be accused of being unduly provocative in what I say, but if we are to believe what the Government tell us and what Tory propaganda over the last few years has stated, this Board is to be set up to serve the public interest.

Mr. Robson Brown: The hon. Member said "personal interest." I take it that he means a personal financial interest.

Mr. Jones: Yes; I made it clear that they should not themselves have a personal financial interest which, if they were so mindful, could be furthered as a

result of information available to them through being members of the Board.

Mr. William Shepherd: I suggest that the hon. Member is to some extent departing from the terms of the Amendment in that he is saying that full-time members shall have no personal financial interest, whereas the Amendment states that they shall not have a "substantial" interest. Perhaps he would indicate for our guidance what he means by "substantial" interest.

Mr. Jones: Hon. Members opposite try to confuse what I mean by personal financial interest. One can have a substantial financial interest and one can have a lesser financial interest. Substantial interest is an interest of such a magnitude as easily to bring to the man possessed of that interest an accretion of wealth arising from his membership of the Board. If I had had my own way, I would have said that there should be no personal financial interest at all but, as has been suggested, we want to be reasonable.
The Board has important duties to perform, and it must be remembered that the Board is to be set up before it will be known from where the personnel on it will come. That sounds a difficult statement to understand. The point is that of necessity this Board must be set up before it may be known from what company or interest its members are drawn, because their current personal interest may be substantially altered as a result of the work of the Board. I grant the Minister that I believe that he personally wishes to see the best possible Board set up. I can assure him that he will need it. Its members will have one of the most difficult jobs ever given to any Board in this country.
I am mainly concerned at the moment with those persons of primary importance and not with the small fish. I am not concerned here with the specialists who may be brought in on a part-time basis or with persons who may represent consumer interests. I am directing my remarks to the bigger fish, to those who will dominate the Board because of their experience gleaned in the industry and who will formulate policy and to some extent control the remaining personnel of the Board. I know that the Committee will give me credit for trying to put the


case as I see it and trying to prove my point.
A person may be appointed to the Board from a company which may or may not be sold to private ownership. It may be that those who are best fitted to deal with the major part of the industry will be drawn on to the Board, but subsequent to going on the Board they may find that they have been drawn from that part of the industry which is still publicly owned— the part that will remain with the Agency—and not from a company or group of companies which have been easily sold.
The Board's duty will be a very onerous one. We want this Board to be completely devoid of any vested interest. I have a great personal regard for this great industry. I know that it may be easy, from the short-term financial point of view, to dispose of a great part of the industry at the expense of breaking up its long-term future industrial potential. The Board has a big job of work to do in advising the Agency on what shall be grouped and on mixing the pheasants with the crows. There will be later Amendments which will deal with that point.
The particular person to whom I was referring could have a substantial financial interest in the privately-owned sector, once it was sold and, at the same time, be on the Board. On the other hand, there may be persons who find themselves on the Board and who have financial interests in companies which are still with that part of the industry which is left with the Agency. I suggest that, human nature being what it is, it will be absolutely impossible to expect that some pressure will not be brought to bear by those persons who have bought certain parts of the industry upon the persons whom they have released to serve upon the Board.
It is easy to imagine what the situation might be. Here is a Board with power to allocate raw materials. Are they going to allocate raw materials to that part of the industry which most needs to be brought up to a state of technical efficiency—those parts that cannot and will not be sold? Will they allocate the raw materials to those parts of the industry which need technical help and supplies of all sorts to a much greater extent than

others? Can it be believed that persons who have been drawn from the sections which will readily find private ownership will really be able to serve the public interest on a national supervisory Board of this kind?
The Minister may say that I am a suspicious type of person. There is no need for him to suggest it; I will admit it. Here and now I admit that I have a shrewd suspicion that the persons who will buy the major part of the steel industry will buy it on the understanding—and will seek assurances when they have bought it—that they are going to get something better in return than the present steel stock provides them with. If they are not to expect that, why should they buy?
Up till now one of the great features of the debate in connection with the duties of this Board and in connection with the Bill generally has been the absence of any criticism that the present set-up has not served the public interest. We have seen today demonstrations of the desire of certain sections of the industry to be represented on the Board. I suggest to the Minister that the last refusal—if I can put it as mildly as that —to give us some indication of the number of full-time members strengthens my case. The smaller the number of full-time members on this Board the greater will be the power vested in them
This Amendment seeks to ensure that they should not have a substantial financial interest in the industry. We say, in effect, that a person with a substantial financial interest in a section of the industry, be it one that is in public hands or one that is in private hands, cannot best serve the over-all public interest and give national service to this national Board.
I want to say a word about the part-time member who may have a financial interest if thought tit but not such as could prejudice the work that he is expected to perform upon the Board. The sort of men I have in mind are the younger brilliant men such as we have in our industry. It would be wrong to give any names on the Floor of this Committee, but I assure the Minister that there are on the managerial staffs of some of our modern companies some extremely brilliant young men. They have been upgraded as a result of nationalisation. Some were upgraded


before nationalisation. [Interruption.] It is all very well to sneer, but I can give names if necessary.

Mr. Shepherd: I was not sneering. I was interested in the right hon. Gentleman's statement that a number of these men had been upgraded before nationalisation.

Mr. Jones: The hon. Member can rest assured that I can give him a long list of people who were upgraded and who did not merit being upgraded, long before the industry was nationalised. However, if I went any further into this matter I should be out of order.
I want to be fair. I am referring to the younger brilliant men who might be considered an extremely fine asset on a part-time basis. I know something of the technical improvements which have taken place in our industry —the greater output of modern furnaces, oxygen induction and similar modern methods. I know young men who are specialists and who would be a great asset to the Board but who, because of the terms of their contracts with their companies, have found it necessary to hold a financial interest so that they could be upgraded. We have no desire to debar a man of that type from giving service to the Board. That is a simple exposition of the difference between the two types of person.
I do not want to repeat what I have already said, but there is lower down the scale the person who declares his interest. It may be said that that type of person is covered later in the Bill, but that is not quite true. Whereas this Amendment covers the whole field of people's work and interests, the Bill refers only to a particular contract that may be under consideration.
I have tried to indicate what we have at the back of our minds. If we are to be guided by the Minister's declaration, there cannot be a large number of full-time members who will be involved. There will be the trade union members—perhaps two or three of them. I hope that one, if not two of them, will be full-time members. They will not have a substantial financial interest in any company. It may be suggested that they may have a few shares here and there, but I know of no trade union leader likely to be called upon to serve on this Board

who can be said at the moment to hold a substantial financial interest. Such men are not in their jobs at the top long enough to acquire much money, and, in my experience, they have always been careful where to put what money they have got.
I take it that the consumer interest full-time member would already have his financial interest in the industry from which he was drawn and which he represented as a consumer. Therefore, our Amendment can apply only to a limited number on the Board.
We feel that, if the Government are to convince the people in this country, and more particularly the workers in the industry, that this Board is to supervise and carry out this immense range of duties which are laid down in the Bill, as well as all the ancillary duties which will flow therefrom, the members of the Board must be completely free from the suspicion that they can in any way feather their nests because of the position in which they are placed.
9.0 p.m.
The Bill as drafted makes no provision to meet the fear which we have expressed. We are anxious that the Board shall be free from the suspicion that the members are on it to look after their own interests or the interests of a particular company or the interests of the privately-owned sector, or the interests of that portion which remains with the Agency, if they are drawn from that sphere of the industry.
We ask the Minister most sincerely to consider this. The Amendment can do no harm. If the Government consider that it can do no good, certainly they must agree that it can do no harm. It is placed on the Order Paper with the intention of trying to assist the Government in creating a Board which will be concerned—to use the words in the propaganda—with the over-all supervision of one of John Bull's greatest assets, the steel industry.
As I see the international situation and economic developments in the world, it seems that we must rely more and more upon our indigenous supply of raw materials and our indigenous supply of labour. It is incumbent upon Her Majesty's Government so to create this Board as to avoid the charges which we fear will be levelled. I believe that those


who will be primarily concerned would themselves see reason in what we are suggesting.
Finally, I ask the Minister not to assume that there is any motive behind this Amendment of attempting to prevent the Board from doing its work. The right hon. Gentleman may well ask why I am anxious that we should have an efficient, able Board. I will tell him. I grew up in this industry, as did my father before me, and I want to see it an efficient industry for our children and grandchildren. Our country's future is at stake in it. When a General Election comes along, we want once again to take the industry over, and we want to take over not a structure which has suffered through some activities of ours but one which has been made a better structure by such Amendments as this.

Mr. Shepherd: I will not detain the Committee for long, but I want to say a few words in reply to the Amendment. Most hon. Members will agree with the purpose behind the Amendment—that it would be in the general interests of the industry and of the Board, and of everybody concerned that there should be no doubt about the position of the members. Nevertheless, the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. Jack Jones) himself realised, as he was moving the Amendment, that he was in some considerable difficulty. When I asked him to define what was meant by "substantial," for example, he gave a definition which was ingenious but which I fear was not one upon which a Department of State would try to work. That is the difficulty.
As I am not opposed to the general theme behind the Amendment, I should have thought that if right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite had confined themselves to paragraph (b) of the Amendment, they would have been on much sounder ground than they are in trying to make a specific definition of what is a substantial interest and what is not.

Mr. Lee: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this is no new departure? The word "substantial" appears in the Rent Restriction Acts, for example.

Mr. Shepherd: Probably it does, and it gives rise to a great deal of work for lawyers. Although I am surrounded by a number of them, I am not anxious to increase the work which falls to their lot.
Why I particularly do not like the precise words of the Amendment is that they are unnecessarily restrictive. I wonder whether the Committee really does appreciate how difficult it is to get men of the class who are fitted to undertake this sort of work. We are to have a Board which is to tell men who are running enterprises of a capital value of something like £150 million to £160 million what they are to do, and I can assure hon. Members that we cannot pick a man off some bench and make him capable of performing that task. The hon. Member for Rotherham, I think, put the cart before the horse when he talked about the part-time men being small fish and the full-time men being big fish. I believe the part-time men will be the big fish, and if my right hon. Friend does not get some big fish as part-timers, we are going to be after him.

Mr. Jack Jones: I am certain the hon. Gentleman does not want to misrepresent what I said. What I said was that the bigger fish, drawn from the bigger corporations, men of extensive and long experience, would be the full-timers. They will be necessary because of their experience and knowledge. I said that they would be the people who, in the first instance, would formulate the policy which the lesser lads would be expected to carry out.

Mr. Shepherd: I am not even visualising that the big fish, as I call them, who will be the part-timers, would have any specific knowledge of this industry. They may have not even that. They may have something germane to it. They would be men whose prestige was such that they would impress their policies and views upon industrial leaders. Those are men extremely difficult to get hold of.
The hon. Gentleman himself said that he felt that the Amendment was restrictive in some sense, and he said that he would not mind men in the steel industry going on the Board though they had a very small financial investment. That precisely bears out my argument. This Board—and all boards of this nature are faced with this problem, and not necessarily only this one—will be faced with the difficulty of getting men who are big in their own enterprises, and unless the Board gets men whose stature is such that they are recognised in industry, the


Board will be a failure, and if there are such restrictions as are envisaged in this Amendment the choice of people to serve will be unnecessarily restricted.
There are many men whom one would put in a position of this kind, with a financial interest, and yet trust implicitly. There are many men whom one would not put in a position of this kind and trust implicitly. Surely it is important that the Minister who has to select these people should be able to make a decision on such lines. It is not merely a matter of whether a man has £200 or £300 of investment. A man of integrity will not take advantage of his financial interests, whatever they are. The Minister, in choosing the individuals for this job, should bear that in mind.
I am not unsympathetic to the views expressed by this Amendment and the other Amendment, although I think the other Amendment to page 3, line 11, would have been a more reasonable proposition. I ask my right hon. Friend, in the interests of the industry as a whole, not to put unnecessary restrictions on the selection of men, which, in any case, is going to be very difficult.

The Solicitor-General (Sir Reginald Manningham-Buller): It may perhaps be for the convenience of the Committee if I make some observations at this stage in answer to the speech of the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. Jack Jones). I am sure he carried the Committee with him in his observations about the desire on both sides to create the best Board possible for this industry. His remarks, in his moving of the Amendment, covered a wide field and I should like, in replying to him, to deal one by one with the points he made, and keep the position with regard to the full-time members quite distinct from the position with regard to the part-timers.
I wish to start by confining my remarks to the whole-time members. We have considered this matter very carefully, and we agree that the chairman and the whole-time members should not, as this Amendment suggests, have any substantial financial interest in the iron and steel industry. We are in agreement about that. But there is a difficulty, which I think the hon. Gentleman appreciated in the course of his speech, about defining precisely what is meant by "substantial"

in that connection. He made a valiant effort to give a satisfactory definition, but I doubt very much whether he satisfied himself that it was correct.
I may tell him straight away that the reason why no provision of the character suggested in paragraph (a) of the Amendment is found in the Bill as it now stands is because the Minister would never contemplate appointing as chairman of this board, or as a whole-time member, anyone who retained a substantial interest in the industry.
Dealing with the second part of paragraph (a), we agree that the Minister should have the obligation upon him of satisfying himself from time to time that the chairman and whole-time members should not have any such interest. That is provided by the last few lines of paragraph (a). But, on reflection, we feel that this part of the hon. Gentleman's proposal could properly be strengthened. We feel that the duty should be imposed upon the chairman and upon the whole-time members of disclosing any financial interest in the industry of which they may become possessed after appointment.
For instance, if one of the whole-time members was left a substantial legacy of shares in a company in the industry we feel that it would be wrong that he should be under the duty of disclosing that interest to the Board and to the Minister without having to wait for the Minister to make the inquiry required by the second part of paragraph (a). So the obligation is kept on the Minister to make an inquiry, but at the same time there is the obligation on the whole-time member to disclose any interest that comes to him after his appointment.

Mr. Jack Jones: The hon. and learned Gentleman said it would be wrong for the member to disclose it. Did he not mean that it would be right for him to disclose it?

The Solicitor-General: It would not be wrong to ask him to disclose it, is what I thought I said. I hope the hon. Gentleman will recognise, not only that we have given the most careful consideration to what he has said, and indeed to the Amendment, with regard to whole-time members, but that the suggestion I have put forward rather improves upon the Amendment. Once that disclosure is made, once the Minister knows of the


interest possessed by the whole-time member, it will be for the Minister to decide whether that interest is of such a character as to make it wrong for that gentleman to continue to hold that appointment.
I do not think I need say any more about the position of the whole-time members. The Committee will realise that, broadly, we are in agreement with the intention behind the Amendment; and, indeed, that we feel it might be carried a little further. We think that it may require a drafting alteration, not only to give effect to the suggestion I make about the imposition of the duty, but also in relation to the definition of "iron and steel industries" in the third line of the Amendment.

9.15 p.m.

Sir Frank Soskice: I am sure that it is entirely my fault if I have misunderstood what the hon. and learned Gentleman is proposing, but I understood him to say that it is his view that the members should be under an obligation to disclose any interest which occurs after appointment to the Board. If I correctly understood that to be his proposal, I am not quite sure what he proposes in regard to the interest that a member has before he is appointed to the Board, and at the time he is appointed.

The Solicitor-General: I was going on to deal with that. Perhaps I arranged my observations in an unfortunate order.
I was dealing, as I thought I had indicated, point by point with the Amendment as it is stated, and I was deliberately confining my remarks to the question of a person who was a full-time member. I was going to say something about what disclosures should be made before appointment, which, I think, will meet the right hon. and learned Gentleman's point.
I should like to come now to the question of part-time members. I think the Committee must recognise that here we are faced with a different problem from that which has arisen under any nationalisation Bill or nationalisation Act, because here, as my right hon. Friend has said, it is the intention to have as members of the Board persons who have not severed their connection with either side

of the industry and consumers' representatives—with the result, of course, that up-to-date practical views and experience from both sides of the industry will be readily available to the Board.
That being the intention, as I understand it from what my right hon. Friend has said, one has to consider that in connection with the proposed Amendment in paragraph (b). Under paragraph (b) the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. Jack Jones), who moved this Amendment, would seek to place upon the Minister the burden of satisfying himself that the person who is to be a part-time member
will have no such financial or other interest as is likely to affect prejudicially the exercise or performance by him of his functions as such a member of the Board
I pause to point out that paragraph (b) is in one respect a little wider than paragraph (a) in relation to whole-time members, because paragraph (a) refers to a "substantial financial interest," whereas paragraph (b) refers to a "financial or other interest".
I would submit this to the Committee. This Board, as the hon. Gentleman said in moving the Amendment, would have to discharge many immense duties. His words were. "This Board will have immense duties to perform." They will be varied in character. It will be quite impossible for the Minister, in advance, before appointing a part-time member, to satisfy himself that under no conceivable circumstances will the interests of that part-time member conflict with subjects which may arise for consideration by the Board. That really cannot be said in advance.
Suppose a development proposal comes up—something that is not in the air at all at the time of the appointment, and something which might affect the part-time member's interest, in a very minor degree, but still affecting it, then the Minister could not before the appointment possibly anticipate that that would arise. If this paragraph were adopted in the form suggested, I think it would be very difficult, if not impossible, for my right hon. Friend to appoint as part-time members any of those young, able and skilled gentlemen to whom the hon. Gentleman referred. He said that he would have no objection to their being appointed part-time members while retaining a director's shareholding qualifi-


cations. It would be difficult for the Minister, in advance, to say that someone with shareholding of that sort might not be prejudicially affected by some proposals coming before the Board.
It is a most difficult problem and, in my view, paragraph (b) of the proposed Amendment would operate to make it impossible to appoint as a part-time member any one having any interest on either side of the industry. That is not the hon. Member's intention, but the words would go as far as that. It goes further than paragraph (a), which refers only to a financial interest, and we do not think it is possible to accept such a restriction on the Minister's power in relation to part-time members. We recognise there is a real problem here. We do not want—I think the hon. Member called it feather nesting or was it feather bedding?

Mr. Jack Jones: Feathering his nest.

The Solicitor-General: We do not want anything of that sort any more than he does. We certainly do not want anything in the nature of log rolling. The real thing is to find the right men for the posts, men of integrity and reliability, and if the Minister finds them, as he will certainly seek to do, there will be no real danger of the sort the hon. Gentleman suggests.
Having considered this question very carefully, we regard it as essential that there shall be a full disclosure both by the full-time and part-time members of such interest as they have in the industry before the Minister appoints them. We think that duty ought to be placed upon them. There must also be a full disclosure to the Board and to the Minister by whole-time and part-time members after their appointment of any interest acquired in the industry by legacy or in any other way. We in the House of Commons insist on a disclosure of any interest that an hon. Member possesses. Once that disclosure is made in this House, we do not deprive ourselves of the advantage of hearing the views of the specialist with specialised knowledge, perhaps derived partly from that particular interest.
We therefore think that for this Board there should be the obligation of full disclosure. We recognise that it is not provided for in this Amendment, but it is

in part provided for in the next Amendment, that is, to Clause 2, page 3, line 11. The hon. Gentleman will see that disclosure is limited to any matter proposed for the deliberation or decision of the Board, but the Amendment seeks to preclude any member of the Board from taking part in any deliberation or decision of the Board after disclosure.
That would mean that, if a man discloses that he has a director's qualification of shares in a very small company, he would be debarred from taking any part in the decisions or deliberations of the Board on that matter. We think that that goes too far. It means that a trade union representative might be debarred from expressing his views because of a very tiny interest indirectly—not even directly—in the matter under discussion. It might be that the consumers' representatives would be kept silent.
We have made provision, and a proper one, in paragraph 5 of the Second Schedule—I am sure the hon. Member for Rotherham would agree— to debar members of the Board from voting in certain circumstances, but we feel that apart from that provision, once there is full disclosure, it should be left to the individual's discretion and judgment whether it would be right for him, in the particular circumstances of the case, and with his colleagues knowing the full extent of his interest, to vote or take any part in the deliberations. We think that the proper answer is that full disclosure of interest should be made—that is essential—and that after such disclosure the risk of voting on a matter in which a member is substantially interested, or interested to any considerable degree, would be very much reduced.
I hope I have covered all the points raised by the Amendment and put forward by the hon. Member for Rotherham, and that, in the light of my observations, the hon. Member may think fit to ask leave to withdraw his Amendment. Perhaps I might summarise the position. We agree that the whole-time member should have no substantial financial interest. We agree that the Minister should satisfy himself from time to time by inquiry. In addition to that, we seek to put upon members of the Board the obligation to disclose any financial interest which they acquire after appointment, and we say that there must be full


disclosure of any interest in the industry before appointment.
It will be obvious to the Committee that if the hon. Gentleman finds himself in substantial agreement with what I am saying this part of the Amendment will have to be redrafted. It will be no more than redrafting. By such redrafting we can go a long way to achieve the object which both sides of the Committee have in mind, and with that in view I ask the hon. Gentleman to consider asking leave to withdraw his Amendment.

Mr. Arthur Colegate: Am I to take it that when my hon. and learned Friend talks about "disclosing" he covers both sale or disposal of any interest?

The Solicitor-General: The position of a member of the Board is not comparable with that of a director of a company who is selling shares in that company. I do not wish, at the moment, to put forward a draft for consideration, but we intend to secure the obligation of a member of the Board to disclose any interest and anything which might affect, or be thought to affect, his judgment on any matter which is arising before the Board. We think that the Board would be very considerably weakened in its operation and its contact with day to day affairs in the industry if we accepted something on the lines of the second part of the first Amendment, which would, in practice, debar many highly qualified people of integrity from serving as part-time members.

9.30 p.m.

Sir F. Soskice: The difficulty that I feel after listening to the speech of the hon. and learned Gentleman—and I believe that my hon. Friends also feel this difficulty—arises from what the Minister said when we were pressing him earlier as to the composition of the Board. We quite understand—indeed, we have asserted—that the Minister is perfectly right in saying that he cannot be tied down and that he must have a certain amount of elbow room in deciding whom he is going to appoint and how many full-time and how many part-time members there are to be.
But what we wanted to know when discussing the earlier Amendment was, broadly speaking, what was to be the

proportion of full-time and part-time members. The Minister answered by saying that "a proportion" would be full-time members. I do not want to recapitulate what was said before, but our difficulty—and it arises again on the present Amendment—is that the Board may consist of, say, 10 part-time members and two full-time members—that is "a proportion." It may be that the Minister intends to appoint nine full-time members and simply two part-time members to assist them. That is, equally, a proportion of full-time members. The trouble is that we are left completely and absolutely in the dark, after the Minister's previous answers, as to what kind of a Board this really is.
The hon. and learned Gentleman and the Minister before him said that, naturally, the Government want to appoint the best people possible. That is quite understandable, and we entirely sympathise; obviously, it is the common purpose of the Committee; but where are we left with that previous answer before us?
What we wanted to do by our Amendment was this. We felt that we did not know how many full-time and how many part-time members there were to be, where the weighting was to be, and who was to do most of the work — the full-time or the part-time members. Therefore, in order to make certain, as my hon. Friend said in moving the Amendment, that there can be no vestige of suspicion, and so that there cannot be any doubt not only as to the integrity but the complete independence and detachment of the members, we put down two separate tests.
We said in the first part of our Amendment, so far as full-time members were concerned, that there should be an absolute and objective test: the full-time member must have no substantial financial interest; never mind whether the interest is one which is likely to affect his judgment, he is not, as a matter of absolute bar, to have any substantial financial interest in the industry. If he has a financial interest of that kind, he should be disqualified from appointment. That is what we said with regard to the full-time member, and that is why we said it, because we are so very much in the dark as to what this Board is going to be.


It is of the utmost importance that if the Board is to exercise any effective influence on the conduct of the industry, it must be an independent Board, and independent in the fullest sense. Therefore, starting from that, being in ignorance of the Minister's intentions, we have said with regard to the full-time member that there is to be an absolute bar to his appointment if he has a substantial financial interest.
The hon. and learned Gentleman cavils at the expression "substantial," and I agree that it might, perhaps, be improved upon. It is one which, as he knows, is used in the Rent Restrictions Acts. It has given rise to a certain amount of difficulty, but nevertheless it has been, broadly, an expression which the courts have found no excessive difficulty in interpreting. At any rate, we adopted it and it implies a clear conception of what we have in mind.
When we came to the question of the part-time member, we adopted a different and more lenient test—[Interruption.]—
despite what the hon. and learned Gentleman says. Listening to him, I thought he was making heavy weather over that second test. He said that it would be very difficult for the Minister to appoint anybody as a part-time member in face of that test. He said that it was likely to deprive the Board of the services of anybody who was expert and experienced in the industry, but I press upon him the view that that is not the case at all.
On the contrary, what the Minister is to say to himself when he is proposing to appoint a part-time member is simply and solely this: "I know the man. I know his character and I know his situation. I know his activities and interests and his financial standing in the industry. I have got to ask myself, not whether his judgment will be prejudicially affected because of his interests, but whether this is a situation in which there is a likelihood of there being prejudicial influence on the exercise of his judgment because he possesses certain interests."
As a matter of common sense, that is an easy test to apply. The Minister can see what the interest is and can ask himself: "Is a man having this interest likely to be put in such an ambiguous position, such a position of conflict between his private and his public

duty, that his judgment may be prejudicially affected?" It is not an absolute law that there can be no conceivable possibility; the Minister has to deal in terms of likelihood. That is an easy test to apply and in the case of the part-time member it is, and is deliberately contrived to be, a more lenient test. That is how we tried to balance out the tests in the case of the full-time and the part-time members.
After hearing the Solicitor-General, we are still in ignorance about what the Minister really means to do. Take the chairman of a board of directors of a large steel company. Is he to be a person who, in the view of the Minister, is to sit as a full-time member or is he not? I take it from what the hon. and learned Gentleman said that he would not be. Take a technician, a chemist of high standing, employed by one of the steel companies. Is he, or is he not, to be a person who is to be either a full-time or a part-time member? We do not know.
The result of our not knowing, and not being told by either of the Ministers who have spoken, is that we have no conception—or very little—of what is to be the Board which the Government intend to appoint to discharge this most important public duty. The whole of the success of the steel industry under this denationalisation proposal, as we see it, will depend upon the degree and effectiveness of the supervision and control which this Board exercises. Therefore, this question is absolutely crucial. I submit that it is the plain duty of the Government that it should be clearly made known—so far as the Minister can and subject to the limitation that he needs a certain discretion—exactly what sort of Board it is intended to appoint and what kind of people are to be members. The Minister should tell us how the Board is to be weighted.
I agree that he needs a certain amount of elbow-room, but it is his duty to have considered all these matters carefully. He should not be in the position of having to come here at the eleventh hour to say, "I cannot tell you anything—or very little —about it." That is not the way to treat the Committee or the public, which is acutely interested in the further progress of this Bill.
Therefore, I press the Minister and the Solicitor-General to give us more information about the intentions of the


Government. The Solicitor-General concluded by recapitulating what he had said earlier. He did not tell us how much of that was to go in the Bill. He said that it was the desire of the Minister—

The Solicitor-General: I thought that I had made it clear that the object of asking for the withdrawal of this Amendment was to enable us to put down a draft in proper form covering the following points: first, that the chairman and whole-time members would not be appointed if they had a substantial interest.

Sir F. Soskice: That is what is in our Amendment.

The Solicitor-General: Yes. We accept that in principle. Secondly, there should be a duty on the Minister of satisfying himself. That is also in the Amendment. Thirdly, I referred to the duty of disclosure. That is not in the Bill at present. I thought that I had made it clear that we thought that it would be an improvement, both with regard to the part-time and the whole-time members, to put upon those members the duty of disclosure. I certainly thought that I had made it clear that that would go in the Bill.

Sir F. Soskice: I am much obliged for that intervention. No doubt it was my fault that I had not clearly appreciated what the hon. and learned Gentleman intends to put in the Bill. He has now told us his intention. He has not yet answered the questions which I have put. If my hon. Friends take the same view, I should be disposed to suggest that my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. Jack Jones) should ask leave to withdraw the Amendment in view of what has been said by the Solicitor-General, subject to the proviso that we still have not got the answers to the questions which I have put. We should desire to discuss these questions further on the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill." We hope that then the Minister will give answers to these general questions.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham will be willing to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment in view of the statement by the Solicitor-General that on Report stage he will embody in this Bill an Amendment covering what he has intimated is the

intention of the Government. We will then see whether we feel satisfied with the change that he makes, and make up our minds what we will do on Report stage. In the meantime, I express the fervent hope that either the Minister or the Solicitor-General, when the Question "That the Clause stand part of the Bill" is before the Committee, will give us some answers to the very important questions that have been asked.

Mr. Jack Jones: Subject to the assurance given by the Minister, and having regard to the matters we intend to press later on, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. E. L. Mallalieu: I beg to move, in page 3, line 22, at the end, to insert:
(8) The Minister shall, as soon as possible after the constitution of the Board, lay before each House of Parliament a statement of the remuneration and allowances that are or will be payable under the last preceding subsection to members of the Board and, if any subsequent determination by him under that subsection involves any departure from the terms of the said statement or if a determination by him under that subsection provides for the payment of a pension to or in respect of any member of the Board, the Minister shall, as soon as possible after the determination, lay a statement thereof before each House of Parliament.
I think these words are unexceptionable from the point of view of the Minister, but, even if they were not, I am sure that he and all other hon. Members will be quite familiar with the procedure whereby certain words are put down in Amendments which are known to be imperfect, but which, nevertheless, provide us, so to speak, with a peg upon which to hang an idea. I want to put to the Minister and to the Committee the idea that lies behind these words.
I believe that the idea which is expressed in this Amendment will be quite as welcome to hon. and right hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the Committee as they are to those on this side. The idea or principle behind these words is that, when public money is paid out to members of public boards, it should be publicly paid out and should be quite above board. Here are sums to be paid out, by way of fees, salaries, allowances or pensions—allowances being at least as important as any of the others—and to be paid out of public funds to members of public boards. I am sure that everybody would think that it is desirable, in


the interests of the Board itself and of the industry of the country, that it should be well known what these sums are, and it is really in order to achieve publicity—a very healthy publicity in these cases — that my hon. Friends and I have put down this Amendment.
I need not waste very much time on this point, which is perfectly clear. I am emboldened to make one point because of what was said on a previous occasion by hon. Members on the opposite side of the Committee. We have heard a great deal of quotation from both sides as to what the other side said on a previous occasion, but on the occasion to which I would refer the Committee at the present time, not only were things said by the then Opposition that now graces the benches opposite which we found entirely acceptable, but when we were on that side of the House we accepted those propositions, so I think that this is something rather new in the debate that has taken place so far today.
9.45 p.m.
I very much hope that when the Minister gets up to reply, as I hope he will very soon, he will say that he has decided to follow the excellent example of my right hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. G. R. Strauss) who, when he was Minister, accepted in a similar position the plea put forward very strongly by Members of the Conservative Party that these funds which, though, of course, they come out of the industry, are, in a sense, public funds, should be paid out in the light of day.
I wish to make one small quotation from one of the most excellent pleas put forward at that time. I do not know to what extent the right hon. Gentleman sits at the feet of the now noble Lord who led the somewhat buccaneering attack upon the Gas Bill in Committee upstairs, but, at any rate, I have some words here which I should like to bring to the attention of the Minister and with which I am happy to say I can agree entirely. It is no use saying, as I am sure the Minister will not attempt to say in this instance, that the circumstances are different, because in the quotation I propose to read to the Committee the noble Lord is enunciating a perfectly general principle which I hope will find very wide acceptance in the Committee. In dealing with this precise point, he said:

In matters of finance, I am satisfied that publicity is essential. I do not believe in any hole-and-corner methods of remunerating people. The only way to do it is to give full publicity.—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee D, 18th March, 1948; c. 294.]
Those were fine, free and freebooting words, but may I, in somewhat more mild, moderate arid respectful terms, say to the Committee tonight that it is most desirable when these allowances, salaries, fees or pensions are paid out that, for the sake of the reputation of the Board itself, they should be paid publicly? After all, almost every cheap-jack in the country thinks himself clever if he gets up and attacks a public board. It is some sort of reaction, I suppose, against the feeling of impotence which an individual has against the immense power of the State. We may all have been guilty of it from time to time, but at any rate here is a chance for the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends at least to show that they want this Board to be beyond suspicion so that it shall have no unfair and uninformed criticism levelled against it on the grounds of expenses and fees. If publicity is given in this manner, there can be no such uninformed criticism.

Mr. Sandys: I think it may be for the convenience of the Committee if I intervene now. I regard the point more as one of regularity and procedure than of politics. This Amendment, as the hon. Member knows, is copied directly—it was mis-copied in the first place—from the 1949 Act.
Without laying any great stress on it, let me explain why we did not originally include this provision. The reason is that the circumstances of the Board and the Corporation are not precisely the same. The hon. and learned Member for Brigg (Mr. E. L. Mallalieu) said that when public money is being paid out it is right and proper that a public statement should be made so that all may know exactly what is being done.
It was clearly public money which paid the remuneration of the members of the Corporation which owned the industry on behalf of the State. The position of the Board is not the same. When the industry has returned fully to private enterprise there will be no public money involved at all. The salaries and pensions of the members of the Board will be paid out of contributions from the industry.


Therefore, it will be private money being spent by a public Board, although so long as the Agency continues to hold any part of the industry it can be maintained that some public money is involved.
It was because of this difference that we did not insert this same provision in the Bill. I do not think that it is a very important point Under the Bill the Minister has the responsibility for fixing the salaries and other emoluments of the members of the Board. He is therefore accountable to Parliament, and there is nothing to prevent an hon. Member asking the Minister on any day of the week, "What salaries have you fixed, and what pensions have you accorded?" Also the Board will, under the Bill, have to present its accounts annually to Parliament, and I presume that salaries and pensions of members of the Board will be shown in that account.

Mr. Arthur Palmer: Was not that the case with the nationalised industries and the public Corporations?

Mr. Sandys: I am not saying that it was or was not. What I am saying is that there would be no secrecy or need of secrecy about the remuneration of the members.

Mr. E. L. Mallalieu: Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that if accounts were presented annually, it is only too likely that those accounts would show sums in the aggregate and not in the particular? Therefore, would it not be better that there should be publicity each time that there is an appointment or a change in the original appointment?

Mr. Sandys: My point is that Questions can be put down about the salaries and pensions fixed by the Minister and the answers would appear in HANSARD in the ordinary way. To sum up, I regard this Amendment as wholly unobjectionable but perhaps somewhat unnecessary. I am anxious wherever possible, however, to be co-operative, and in that spirit I am quite ready to accept the Amendment.

Mr. G. R. Strauss: I am very glad that the right hon. Gentleman has seen his way to accept this Amendment. I quite agree that the proposal now is slightly different from the proposal under the Iron and Steel Act when the Corporation was in charge of and owned

all the industries, but the difference is not very great. Anyhow, the Minister has seen our point of view and I am glad he is prepared to accept it and to accept the Amendment. I only ask him to see our point of view, which is reasonable at all times, on even more important matters which may follow in subsequent Amendments. I ask him to follow his own very good example when we reach those important Amendments.

Amendment agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

Mr. G. R. Strauss: Does the right hon. Gentleman intend to make any further statement about the Board, its composition, its proportions, and so on? We are most anxious to know what it will be like. We have very little information so far and I should like to make a few comments and ask some questions and find out where we are going. But it would be much more convenient if the right hon. Gentleman, to start with, told us what sort of thing he has in mind; then our comments would be more informed and less tentative.

Mr. Sandys: I am not anxious to withhold reasonable information from the Committee, but I think the most convenient course would be for the right hon. Gentleman to fire a few questions at me, which I shall do my best to answer.

Mr. Strauss: I shall do that with pleasure.
We consider that the two most important parts of this Bill—quite apart from the principle of selling publicly-owned property into private hands—is the composition of the Board and the powers they will have with which to supervise and, as we think they ought to do, control the industry. At the moment, we have very little information as to what sort of Board this will be. We know that it is to consist of between nine and 14 members; we know there will be a proportion—which may be five per cent, or 10 per cent.—of full-time members, and we know that people who have any substantial financial interest in the industry will not be on the Board.
But we want to know a great deal more than that before we can decide whether this is the sort of Board which can really


supervise this industry in the public interest. The fundamental thing which we want to know is whether it is to be a Board like the Forbes Board —a stopgap Board which had certain responsibilities pending the nationalisation of the iron and steel industry. That Board consisted of representatives of the iron and steel industry, some trade union representatives, an independent chairman and, I think, another independent member.
That Board met, roughly, once a fortnight and, with the exception of the chairman, who was a full-time member, it did not bother itself with the problems of the industry except once a fortnight. Practically every person except the chairman had an interest in the industry. If that is the sort of board that is to be appointed in this case—and we fear it is, with some very small modifications—it cannot possible effect adequate public supervision over this industry.
The right hon. Gentleman, acting on behalf of the Government, seems to be riding two horses which are going in quite different directions. He is saying, "We do not want Government interference in the industry. The industry can take care of itself and it must be asked to do so." He also says that a Board will be appointed which will consist, we believe, very largely of representatives of the industry, with perhaps some trade union members on it, and that Board will be charged with the duty of looking after the industry. While the Government are saying that the industry must be charged with looking after itself they also say that there must be public supervision.
Which is more important in the Government's mind? The two things are not identical. Either the industry looks after itself and supervises its own affairs or there is public supervision. Various statements have been made about Government supervision of this industry. In the White Paper and in most of their speeches the Government have spoken of adequate public supervision; but some Ministers have gone further. The right hon. Gentleman who is now Secretary of State for the Colonies, in speaking on this matter in a previous Parliament—and this speech was quoted with approval by the right hon. Gentleman who is now the Minister of Supply—talked of Government supervision of this industry being necessary.
One stops a moment to ask why, in the opinion of the Conservative Party, is any public or Government supervision of this industry necessary. It is a change. Some 10 or 15 years ago that principle would not have been conceded. The reason why the Conservative Party think that some public supervision is necessary is because they fear that it is possible—I shall not put it higher than that—that this industry, or elements within it, may do something which is in their interest but not in the public interest, and therefore there has to be a measure of control over it.
We go further. We say that if there is to be public supervision that supervision must be carried out by people who will act solely in the public interest and who have no interest in the industry. If we were told by the Minister that this Board was to consist primarily of full-time members with no interest in the industry, who would, therefore, have only the public interest at heart and in mind, and that there would be only a small number of part-timers with knowledge of the industry, that would be all right. But we are told nothing of the sort.
10.0 p.m.
We believe, judging from the speeches which have been made by the Government, that this is to be a replica of the old Forbes Board, manned largely by representatives of the industry with perhaps one or two independent industrialists outside the industry, and that the Board will not be manned. as we say it should be, by people who are working full-time in the public interest.
We say that it is ridiculous that supervision of the industry should be carried out by the people who ought to be supervised. It is no use having on this Board leading people in the steel industry in a majority to carry out the job of supervision, when the whole alleged purpose of this Bill is to bring about public supervision of these very people. Let us start off with that conception. Actually, we on these benches go much further and say that there should be not only supervision but control of ownership, but I am taking the Government's case that there should be public supervision. We say that, taking that case, there should be supervision by people who are to have responsibility to the public and who are not in any way connected with the industry.


What we want from the Government is an undertaking which is quite simple and, I should have thought, quite obvious. I do not know why they cannot give us a simple straight answer. We say that there should not be supervision by the steel masters or their representatives. That is no good at all. A Board of that sort, as we said on the Second Reading—and I fear we have got to say it again—is a sham. At the moment, it has not got any really effective powers to carry out its supervisory responsibilities. If it is to be controlled by the steel masters themselves—the very people who are to be supervised—the whole thing is a farce.
We are not in the slightest reconciled to a Board of this sort just because there are a certain number of trade union representatives on it. Something which is wrongly conceived is not made right by putting trade union people on it. We do not believe that this industry should be controlled by any syndicalist organisation. There should not be a combination of employers and trade unionists, however worthy those persons may be, any more than it should be a body consisting of employers alone. We say that it should be controlled by people drawn from outside the industry concerned solely with the public service. It is on that point that we want further information. Perhaps our fears will be removed by what the Minister says, but, so far, he has not removed our fears in the slightest.
Perhaps we are suspicious, but the sort of thing I visualise as having happened is this. There have been discussions between the Government—I will not say with Steel House, if the right hon. Gentleman dislikes the idea of discussing a bargain with Steel House, but let us say with the steel masters. The Government said, "We have to have some public supervision of your industry." I am sure that the leaders of the steel industry do not like that idea at all. They may have had to accept it reluctantly, but their case has always been that the industry is perfect, that it is the finest industry in the world and only serves the public.
Plainly, they will resent the position which the Conservatives have been forced to take up as a result of the public pressure and the behaviour of the steel indus-

try in the past, that this industry has to be controlled and supervised. I imagine that the Conservative Party have said to the steel masters, "There has to be public supervision of your industry," and the steel masters have protested and said, "It is quite ridiculous and unnecessary."
I imagine that the Conservative Party then said, "Because your behaviour in the past has so aroused public opinion, because we had to make the promise for political reasons, and because we put it in our Election promises—and we must keep at least one of our Election promises—we are bound to have this control." Then they went on, "But you need not worry about the fact that we shall appoint a Board to control the industry because that Board will largely be manned by your own people. There is nothing to ear. If it is not your own people it will be some trade unionists working in the industry, who have the same interests, and there may be one or two outside industrialists. The whole thing need have no terrors for you at all. You need not worry about it. It will not do anything serious; it will not interfere or control. As a Government we are against controls. We are in favour of the maximum freedom for industry. You people in industry do not want control, and we are all agreed that we shall get out of this horrible dilemma by appointing a Board which will largely represent the iron and steel interests."
The Government probably went on to say, "Moreover, there is a good chance that if we appoint a Board of this sort, very similar to the one appointed by the Labour Party in 1945–never mind that it is for different purposes—there is a good chance that the Labour Party will accept it as a solution of the iron and steel problem. This proposal has every type of advantage and the Labour Party will not want to renationalise the iron and steel industry. You accept it and we will all be happy boys together and be prosperous."
If anything like that happened, I can assure all those who even thought that way that they are living in a fools' paradise. We say categorically that if the Board is to carry out proper public supervision or, as the Secretary of State for the Colonies said was necessary, Government supervision, it must be


a Board consisting not entirely but largely of independent people concerned only with the public interest. Of course, if it were to carry out the sort of purpose which we had in mind for the industry it would be an altogether different Board from that proposed. But, in any event, we say that this Board must be composed of people concerned solely with the public interest and divorced from the iron and steel industry.
If the right hon. Gentleman has a Board of that sort in mind, we shall be very pleased to hear it. We may then revise our idea about this section of the Bill. If he cannot give that undertaking and information we shall be confirmed in the view which we have held so far—that the Board is nothing but a sham and that its sole purpose is to hoodwink the public and Parliament.

Mr. Sandys: It may be convenient if I intervene right away. As I said earlier, I am anxious to be as helpful as I can and to give the Committee all possible information. The only reason why I am reluctant to give figures and proportions and details about our proposals for the composition of the Board—and the right hon. Gentleman, who was in a similar position will, I am sure, fully understand —is the reason which he does not believe, namely, that we have not fixed the whole Board already. If we had done what he suggests and had already settled the names, I should have been in much less difficulty in describing the composition of the Board.
Having given assurances to the Committee I do not want to find any difficulty when I begin discussions with a view to building up a satisfactory, balanced and efficient team. It may be that the jig-saw puzzle does not quite fit the proportion which I quoted in the Committee, and then I shall be in the dilemma either of appointing a Board which, in my opinion, is not the best possible or, alternatively, feeling that to some extent I have committed an act of bad faith towards the House of Commons.
That is the only reason why I have been a little cagey. The right hon. Gentleman has pressed me, and I do not want to appear to be unforthcoming, but I want to preface my next remarks by saying that I hope the Committee will understand that I am going to describe

the sort of composition I should like to see for the Board. But there are sometimes difficulties, and I hope that the Committee would not regard it as an act of bad faith if, in small details here and there, we did not find its composition to accord exactly with what I am now saying. If the Committee will accept that, I shall feel freer to say what is in our minds. I hope that that will be generally acceptable.
The Board—I have just jotted down a few things while the right hon. Gentleman was talking—should, in our view. be composed of a number of elements. First of all, the chairman, who, in our view, should be independent and full-time; that is to say, not connected with the iron and steel industry, and that if he comes from the industry, he severs his connections with it.

Mr. H. G. McGhee: Docker.

Mr. Sandys: Then a nucleus of full-time members which should include, if possible, men drawn from both sides of the industry; a consumer; and, possibly, also an independent member. The third element should be part-time members. some drawn from within industry—when I say "within industry" I am not saying within the iron and steel industry, but within industry—and, of course. from both sides of industry; consumer industry as well as the iron and steel industry. Of course, we now want some people not engaged in industry, that is to say, independent members, with experience of administration, business, science, and so forth—the qualifications set out in the Bill. Steel producers—I wonder if I may have the attention of the right hon. Gentleman, because he made so much of this point—

Mr. G. R. Strauss: I am so sorry.

Mr. Sandys: I should like to take this opportunity of saying that, in our opinion, the steel producers on the Board should not number more than about three, and there should be equal representation of the trade union side in the iron and steel industry.
The right hon. Gentleman asked whether the industry was going to run itself, or whether it was to be publicly supervised. First of all, the Board must not be a board of representatives of interests—

Mr. Fienburgh: Consumer interests?

10.15 p.m.

Mr. Sandys: —interests warring with one another. I think that that was the expression used. That is certainly not our conception of this Board. I entirely agree that the members of the Board should not be regarded, or regard themselves, as delegates or representatives of industries or of interests. All will be appointed in their individual capacity, and their decisions should be regarded as corporate decisions. But that does not mean, I hope, that we must avoid appointing to the Board people who are closely in touch with the industries concerned. It should not be assumed that a member who is drawn from a particular industry must necessarily, for that reason, regard himself as its advocate. On the contrary, he will, as I conceive it, bring to the Board the benefit of his knowledge of that particular industry.
I think that on all sides of the Committee we can agree that we want a Board whose members together have a wide experience over the whole field covered by the Board's duties, including their duties towards consumers. To exclude men coming from industry would result in a Board of independents and officials, and we should rightly be criticised for appointing men who, by their lack of experience, were not qualified for the task.
To sum up, I would say that the Board must not be a cockpit in which divergent elements will fight for their respective interests. On the contrary, it must be a body of persons—I wonder if I could have the right hon. Gentleman's attention; it is largely for his benefit that I am saying this. I was saying that the Board must not be a cockpit in which divergent elements will fight for their respective interests. On the contrary, it must be a body of persons with wide experience entrusted with an important public responsibility which they will discharge collectively. We believe that a body of this kind will provide the public supervision which we consider desirable, and which we are confident this Bill will secure.

Mr. Fienburgh: We have received a small measure of satisfaction from the Minister in outlining some of the ways in which he hopes to make this Board more

acceptable to the forthcoming Labour Government. As has already been pointed out, it will take rather more than a certain amount of jiggery-pokery with names on paper to ensure that we are satisfied that a proper degree of public supervision is being exercised over this industry.
There is one point which we do want to hammer home, and that is that, mainly due to the activities of the Government. this must be a very hard-working Board indeed. Not only has it got a very wide and responsbile range of tasks within the industry previously under public ownership, but at the same time it will have a supervisory role over a large number of other industries not previously under public ownership. With all that it will be surrounded with snags, baffles. and mazes of all types of construction to prevent it from doing its work adequately and effectively. That is why we insist that these men must be men of probity and independence, judgment and strength. and men prepared to fight against the Government on these issues.
There is a great temptation, in merely listing people for membership of this Board, to say that if they have their roots in a particular section of industry that is satisfactory and sufficient. It is also important to look upon the nature of their connection with the industry and the nature of the other tasks they perform. We are all—particularly those of us in politics—very familiar with the professional committee-sitter who dashes into a board meeting or a committee meeting, gobbling his documents as he arrives, and who uses them, half-digested, in the process of discussion.
It would be very dangerous indeed—and I am sure hon. Members opposite are more experienced in this kind of committee-sitting than those on this side of the Committee—if a Board of such vital importance were to be manned by a large number of people who are not able to concentrate fully and effectively on the tasks they have in front of them.
The great danger which we have before us at the moment is that once the industry is handed back to private ownership we shall see the same kind of duplication as we had before. Before public ownership, we found that the 14 directors of Stewart and Lloyds held together 85 seats on the boards of companies, including 19


direct subsidaries of Stewart and Lloyds, and those companies ranged from iron and steel to chemicals, bicycles, and Smith's Potato Crisps.
I feel that it would be a danger for the Minister to have a part-time producer on the Board, not concentrating fully on the industry, and concerned not only with the properties of Stewart and Lloyds but with the sale of potato crisps, making an occasional attendance at a part-time Board which is pretending adequately to supervise the industry.
We could go all through the wide range of the steel industry before the war under private ownership. We could disclose

fairly effectively the closely interlocking directorships between the various companies, and our experience of that only strengthens us still more in demanding that this Board should be independent. should have the tools which it needs to do the job and have an adequate number of full-time people on it, so that they can steep themselves in the wider questions affecting the industry, and so faithfully discharge their responsibility.

Question put, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 265; Noes, 240.

Division No. 66]
AYES
[10.24 p.m.


Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)
Digby, S. Wingfield
Hulbert, Wing Cdr. N. J.


Alport, C. J. M.
Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Hurd, A. R.


Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.
Hutchinson, Sir Geoffrey (Ilford, N.)


Amory, Heathcoat (Tiverton)
Donner, P. W.
Hutchison, Lt.-Com. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)


Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.
Doughty, C. J. A.
Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M.


Arbuthnot, John
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord Malcolm
Hylton-Foster, H. B. H.


Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)
Drayson, G. B.
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.)
Dugdale, Rt. Hon. Sir T. (Richmond)
Jennings, R.


Astor, Hon. J. J.
Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)


Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.
Eccles, Rt. Hon. D. M.
Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)


Baldwin, A. E.
Eden, Rt. Hon. A.
Jones, A. (Hall Green)


Barber, Anthony
Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.


Barlow, Sir John
Erroll, F. J.
Kaberry, D.


Baxter, A. B.
Fell, A.
Keeling, Sir Edward


Beach, Maj. Hicks
Finlay, Graeme
Kerr, H. W.


Beamish, Maj. Tufton
Fisher, Nigel
Lambert, Hon. G.


Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. [...]
Lambton, Viscount


Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Fletcher-Cooke, C.
Lancaster, Col. C. G.


Bennett, F. M. (Reading, N.)
Fort, R.
Langford-Holt, J. A.


Bennett, Sir Peter (Edgbaston)
Foster, John
Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe &amp; Lansdale)
Leather, E. H. C.


Bennett, William (Woodside)
Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir David Maxwell
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.


Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Galbraith, Rt. Hon. T. D. (Pollok)
Legh, P. R. (Petersfield)


Birch, Nigel
Garner-Evans, E. H.
Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A T.


Bishop, F. P.
George, Rt. Hon. Maj. G. Lloyd
Linstead, H. N.


Black, C. W.
Glyn, Sir Ralph
Llewellyn, D. T.


Boothby, R. J. G.
Godber, J. B.
Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)


Bossom, A. C.
Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)


Bowen, E. R.
Gough, C. F. H
Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Gower, H. R.
Longden, Gilbert


Boyle, Sir Edward
Graham, Sir Fergus
Low, A. R. W.


Braine, B. R.
Gridley, Sir Arnold
Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)


Braithwaite, Lt.-Cdr. G. (Bristol, N.W.)
Grimond, J.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh


Bromley-Davenport, Lt--Col. W. H.
Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
Lyttelton, Rt. Hon O.


Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)
Hall, John (Wycombe)
McAdden, S. J.


Brooman-White, R. C.
Harden, J. R. E.
McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M S


Browne, Jack (Govan)
Hare, Hon. J. H.
Macdonald, Sir Peter


Bullock, Capt. M.
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N)
Mackeson, Brig. H. R.


Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.
Harris, Reader (Heston)
McKibbin, A. J.


Burden, F. F. A.
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
McKie, J. H. (Galloway)


Butcher, Sir Herbert
Harvey, Air Cdre A. V. (Macclesfield)
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John


Campbell, Sir David
Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)
Maclean, Fitzroy


Carr, Robert
Hay, John
MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)


Carson, Hon. E.
Heald, Sir Lionel
Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)


Cary, Sir Robert
Heath, Edward
Macpherson, Maj. Niall (Dumfries)


Channon, H.
Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Maitland, Comdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)


Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)
Higgs, J. M. C.
Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)


Cole, Norman
Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)
Manningham-Buller, Sir R. E.


Colegate, W. A.
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Markham, Major S. F.


Conant, Maj. R. J. E.
Hirst, Geoffrey
Marlowe, A. A. H.


Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Holland-Martin, C J.
Marples, A. E.


Cranborne, Viscount
Hollis, M. C.
Marshall, Sir Sidney (Sutton)


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C
Halt, A. F.
Maude, Angus


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Cal. O. E.
Hope, Lord John
Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.


Crouch, R. F.
Hopkinson, Rt. Hon. Henry
Medlicott, Brig. F.


Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)
Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.
Mellor, Sir John


Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)
Horobin, I. M.
Molson, A. H. E.


Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)
Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence
Morrison, John (Salisbury)


Davidson, Viscountess
Howard, Greville (St. Ives)
Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.


Deedes, W. F.
Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)
Nabarro, G. D. N.




Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)
Robson-Brown, W.
Teeling, W.


Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. P. L. (Hereford)


Noble, Cmdr. A. H. P.
Roper, Sir Harold
Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)


Nugent, G. R. H.
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Oakshott, H. D.
Russell, R. S.
Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, W.)


Odey, G. W.
Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.
Turner, H. F. L.


O'Neill, Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)
Salter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur
Turton, R. H.


Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.
Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Savory, Prof. Sir Douglas
Vane, W. M. F.


Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)
Schofield, Lt.-Col. W. (Rochdale)
Vosper, D. F.


Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian (Weston-super-Mare)
Scott, R. Donald
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Osborne, C.
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. Marylebone)


Partridge, E.
Shepherd, William
Walker-Smith, D. C.


Peaks, Rt. Hon. O.
Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)
Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)


Perkins, W. R, D.
Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter
Watkinson, H. A.


Peto, Brig. C. H. M.
Smithers, Sir Waldron (Orpington)
Webbe, Sir H. (London &amp; Westminster)


Peyton, J. W. W
Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)
Wellwood, W.


Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Snadden, W. McN
Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)


Pilkington, Capt. R. A
Speir, R. M.
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Pitman, I. J.
Spens, Sir Patrick (Kensington, S.)
Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)


Powell, J. Enoch
Stevens, G. P.
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


Profumo, J. D.
Steward, W. A. (Woolwich. W)
Wills, G.


Raikes, Sir Victor
Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Rayner, Brig. R.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M
Wood, Hon. R.


Redmayne, M.
Storey, S.
York, C.


Remnant, Hon. P
Strauss, Henry (Norwich. S.)



Renton, D. L. M
Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Roberts, Peter (Heeley)
Sutcliffe, Sir Harold
Mr. Drewe and


Robertson, Sir David
Taylor, Charles (Eastbourne)
Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith.


Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)
Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)





NOES


Adams, Richard
Driberg, T. E. N.
Janner, B.


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John (W. Bromwich)
Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.


Anderson, Alexander (Motherwell)
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Jeger, George (Goole)


Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)
Edwards, John (Brighouse)
Jenkins, R. H. (Stochford)


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
Johnson, James (Rugby)


Awbery, S. S.
Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)
Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)


Bacon, Miss Alice
Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
Jones, David (Hartlepool)


Baird, J.
Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)
Jones, Frederick Elwyn (West Ham, S.)


Balfour, A.
Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)


Bartley, P.
Fernyhough, E.
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Fienburgh, W.
Kenyon, C.


Bence, C. R.
Finch, H. J.
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.


Benn, Wedgwood
Fletcher, Erie (Islington, E.)
King, Dr. H. M.


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Follick, M.
Kinley, J.


Bing, G. H. C.
Foot, M. M.
Lee, Frederick (Newton)


Blackburn, F.
Forman, J. C.
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)


Blenkinsop, A.
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)


Boardman, H.
Freeman, Peter (Newport)
Lewis, Arthur


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G
Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N
Lindgren, G. S.


Bowden, H. W
Gibson, C. W.
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.


Bowles, F. G.
Glanville, James
MacColl, J. E.


Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth
Gooch, E. G.
McGhee, H. G.


Brockway, A. F.
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C
McInnes, J.


Brook, Dryden (Halifax)
Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale)
McLeavy, F.


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Arthur (Wakefield)
MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.
McNeill, Rt. Hon. H.


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)


Burton, Miss F. E.
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Mainwaring, W. H.


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S)
Hale, Leslie
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)


Callaghan, L. J.
Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)


Carmichael, J.
Hall, John T. (Gateshead, W.)
Mann, Mrs. Jean


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Hamilton, W. W.
Manuel, A. C.


Champion, A. J.
Hannan, W.
Mayhew, C. P.


Chapman, W. D.
Hardy, E. A.
Mikardo, Ian


Chetwynd, G. R
Hargreaves, A.
Mitchison, G. R


Clunie. J
Harrison, J. (Nottingham, E.)
Monslow, W.


Coldrick, W.
Hastings, S.
Moody, A. S


Collick, P. H.
Hayman, F. H.
Morley, R.


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Healey, Denis (Leeds, S.E.)
Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)


Cove, W. G.
Herbison, Miss M.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, S.)


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Hewitson, Capt. M
Mort, D. L.


Crosland, C. A. R.
Hobson, C. R.
Moyle, A.


Cullen, Mrs. A.
Holmes, Horace (Hemsworth)
Mulley, F. W.


Daines, P.
Houghton, Douglas
Murray, J. D.


Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)
Nally, W.


Darling, George (Hillsborough)
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J.


Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
O'Brien, T.


Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Oldfield, W. H.


de Freitas, Geoffrey
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Oliver, G. H.


Deer, G.
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Orbach, M.


Delargy, H. J
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Oswald, T.


Dodds, N. N.
Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)
Padley, W. E.


Donnelly, D. L.
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)







Palmer, A. M. F.
Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)
Watkins, T. E.


Pannell, Charles
Snow, J. W.
Webb, Rt. Hon. M. (Bradford, C.)


Pargiter, G. A
Sorensen, R. W.
Weitzman, D.


Paton, J.
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Peart, T. F.
Sparks, J. A.
Wells, William (Walsall)


Popplewell, E.
Steele, T.
West, D. G.


Porter, G
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. John


Price, Joseph T. (Westhoughton)
Stokes, Rt. Hon. R. R.
Wheeldon, W. E.


Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)
Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W


Proctor, W. T.
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.
Wigg, George


Pryde, D. J.
Sylvester, G. O.
Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.


Pursey, Cmdr. H
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)
Wilkins, W. A.


Rankin, John
Taylor, John (West Lothian)
Willey, F. T.


Reeves, J.
Taylor, Rt. Hon. Robert (Morpeth)
Williams, David (Neath)


Reid, Thomas (Swindon)
Thomas, David (Aberdare)
Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertiliery)


Reid, William (Camlachie)
Thomas, George (Cardiff)
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Richards, R.
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)
Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)


Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)
Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)


Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)
Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)
Winterbottom, Ian (Nottingham, C.)


Ross, William
Thornton, E.
Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)


Shackleton, E. A. A.
Thorne, Ernest
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A


Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.
Timmons, J.
Wyatt, W. L.


Short, E. W.
Tomney, F.
Yates, V. F.


Shurmer, P. L. E.
Turner-Samuels, M.
Younger, Rt. Hon. K


Silverman, Julius (Erdington)
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynr



Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)
Viant, S. P.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Slater, J.
Wallace, H. W.
Mr. Pearson and Mr. Arthur Allen.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

It being after Half-past Ten o'Clock, The CHAIRMAN, pursuant to Order, left the Chair to report Progress, and ask leave to sit again.

Committee report Progress; to sit again Tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — SCHOOL EXAMINATIONS

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Kaberry.]

10.33 p.m.

Mr. M. Follick: I rise this evening to bring before this House a question that is undoubtedly causing some concern among families. My reason for doing so is because I do not think that our examination system is serving its right function or the function that it was intended to serve. What is really the function of examination in education? Is it to be a means of selection. shutting out some pupils who are looking forward to rising to a higher level of education? Is it meant to be a strainer through which the pupils have to pass in order to go from one step in education to a higher step? Should it not be a test for knowledge rather than a test for selection? At present, what the set examination is doing in the schools is subjecting the pupil to high pressure learning, and high pressure learning is never good learning.
The object of education is to develop the knowledge of the pupil, and not to press on the pupil at a given moment to sit for an examination, spreading an atmosphere of fear and dread throughout the schools, even ruining the future of the child and very often bringing misery to the family to which the child belongs. We get a transference of this psychosis from the child to the family, so that we get parents threatening the child that they will not do certain things if the child does not pass the examination. That is bringing pressure learning into our system of education, and it is a wrong system. The system of education should be gradually developing the capabilities of the child, the ability of the child to learn. That is not what we are using the examination for.
I am not speaking about tests without prior warning, but as long as we have this set examination, we shall be driving children to sit for these examinations and to acquire knowledge in order to pass, and that is wrong. It is not only causing misery; I have here details of 12 cases of suicide of young children, with their names, their ages and their sex, and these are cases of children committing suicide because they were afraid to face up to the examination. It is not one case, but 12, within the period from April, 1948, to the present month. I have not sought them out; there may be hundreds more for all I know. I have taken them out in the ordinary course of my daily reading of the newspapers.
I have here details of one child of 14, one of 13, three children of 15—one the


child of a Minister who used to sit on those benches which was sent to a cramming institution in order to bring it up to the standard required to be able to pass the examination. That is not gaining knowledge; it is just cramming and stuffing the pupil with a certain amount of knowledge to pass an examination.
I am going to give the names of two children—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—who ran away from home, both of whom said they ran away on account of the examination. One was a boy from Stowe —Michael Reeves, aged 17. He says, "I was quite happy at Stowe, but I became worried about the school exams., and that was why I disappeared." The other was the case of a girl, but I will not give her name. Her mother, referring to the examinations, said, "Janice had been worrying about them for days. She could not sleep. I used to hear her tossing and turning."
If that sort of thing exists, one is bringing misery and dread into the schools instead of happiness. What we want are happy children, because if children cannot be happy when they are children, they cannot be happy later in life. We are spoiling their future and their present to maintain a system of set examinations, which prove nothing in the end, except that either a child has or has not the ability or temperament to sit for the examination.
We do not prove knowledge because it is a high-pressure knowledge. We do not prove ability to learn because children can go to cramming institutes. And, we do not prove character. I suggest that by maintaining carefully kept records throughout the school life of the child, we should be adopting a system of education of the greatest value to this country. We then know, not the result of an examination, but the whole course of a child in his or her school years. I am sure any employer, engaging a young child for his business, would rather have such a record than a school-leaving certificate.
We do not get the best material by this means of set examinations. We only get very often a "Smart Alec," who can go through the examinations. But, the people we are losing very often are the best material; those who are the most sensitive.

Mr. L. M. Lever: Does my hon. Friend intend to abolish examinations at 11 plus as a condition of going in for secondary education?

Mr. Follick: I will give all that presently, but do not interrupt just for the sake of making a point.
With these carefully kept records, we can pass from primary to secondary education with a much safer transference than we can simply by having passed some set examination, for which a child may have been specially prepared. If the education system works smoothly, the record will carry a child right through. A school can be guided by that record as to whether a pupil is of sufficient merit to go on to a different system of education. If we are to continue these set examinations, we are going to continue the sense of frustration in schools. When children commit suicide because of the dread of this overhanging spectre of examinations and to avoid the examinations, we are breeding in the schools a hatred of learning, which will drive children into other spheres of excitement.
Instead of the excitement of being able to learn, they have the excitement of other things, caused by, perhaps, truancy from school to avoid the examinations. I wish to quote from the "Daily Telegraph" a few paragraphs from an educationalist on this very subject.
The Chairman of the Notts Education Committee stated:
Yet you are aware, or should be, that the best men are often passed over. The best men are often flummoxed by such a literary challenge.
The writer is talking of men; not of children. If it affects men like that, think how it affects children. The article goes on:
Everybody knows that the first Wrangler seldom climbs high, and that many great men were dunces at school. I seem to recall that Mr. Churchill himself was not an infant prodigy.
I have never heard of any examination that the present Prime Minister ever passed at school. If he had passed examinations, I would venture to say, he would never have had the temperament that brought him upon the road to being one of the greatest war leaders this country has ever known.

Mr. James Johnson: A case of late development.

Mr. Follick: There were drawbacks in the right hon. Gentleman's make-up that did not allow him to sit for and pass examinations.
It may be said that if we rely entirely on the records of children that may open up means for teachers to favour one pupil against another. Well, we get the same thing in set examinations, because it is not so very long ago that a headmistress was dismissed. This happened under the previous Government, since I have been in the House. The Chairman of the Notts Education Committee stated:
It was decided to give her notice of dismissal and to stop her salary at once, but she could appeal with a legal adviser to a special subcommittee. This lady may have a complete answer.
I rather hope she will have. It was said that this case might have far-reaching results.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Education (Mr. Kenneth Pickthorn): What did she do?

Mr. Follick: I am referring to the "Daily Express" of 22nd December, 1950.

Mr. Pickthorn: Did she answer?

Mr. Follick: I do not think so. I will give the hon. Gentleman the paper.
What I am trying to put before the Minister is the belief that we are losing a lot of very valuable material that might benefit the nation, and getting only material that has examination temperament, whereas if we kept the records of children, those with merit would rise to the top, and not those who have a certain temperament that enables them to sit placidly in front of an examination paper and get away with it. In examinations a lot depends on luck. One may be lucky and get just the questions one wants. Or one may be unlucky, time and time again, and get only the sort of questions to which one does not know the answers.
I have quoted from the "Daily Telegraph" what was said by an education specialist, and I am now going to read one or two extracts from newspapers giving the views of others on education. The 11-year plus school examination, which is used to decide which children shall go to grammar schools, was described as an "injustice" by Mr. William F. Hawkins, headmaster of

Gibbons Secondary Modern School at Willesden.
I have another cutting here from a known educationist who has exactly the same opinion about examinations for older pupils. Dr. John Lowe, Dean of Christchurch, Oxford, said in Bristol that the suicide rate among university students is higher than among other groups. If this examination spectre affects older students, just think how it affects youngsters, frightening them and causing them dread. Again I read of
the agonies and heart-burnings of 10,000 Surrey schoolchildren and 20,000 parents waiting to learn the results of the entrance examination.
These are experts speaking, not of the value of the set examination but against the set examination.
I have another cutting which shows to what extent parents will go to make their children pass examinations. Not only do they send them to cramming-institutions, but they even go to the extent of subjecting them to hypnotic treatment. Consider this, with the authority of a Harley Street specialist, Dr. A. P. Magonet, President of the Medical Hypnosis Association:
London doctors have been using for some time the method employed by a Suffolk doctor who hypnotises schoolchildren and students before they sit for examinations.
I have all this here in print, which I would willingly hand over to the Parliamentary Secretary.
As I want to give the Parliamentary Secretary time to reply I shall now sit down, begging him not to worry about a bit of sneering from a man who knows nothing about the question of school education. I beg him, with his great knowledge of teaching and his knowledge of examinations, of people who have failed and of people who ought not to have failed—as he knows quite well—to think in what way the set examination can be gradually abolished. It cannot he abolished immediately; but it can be done gradually, and have introduced into our educational system a method of records which will carry the pupil right through life, and will be some guidance to his future intellectual development.

10.53 p.m.

Mr. Ralph Morley: The hon. Member for Loughborough (Mr. Follick) has made a very


vigorous speech against the examination system. With a few of the phrases that he uttered perhaps some of us might possibly agree, but I am afraid that in the complex system of society in which we are now living we cannot possibly dispense with examinations.
In the first place, success in an examination is a badge of competence. The nation demands that lawyers, teachers, doctors and engineers should have acquired a certain knowledge and skills, but how can they show that they have acquired that knowledge and those skills unless they have passed a suitable examination?
The second reason why I think we still require examinations is that examinations in schools are a check. A teacher may be teaching for several months, feeling that he has been teaching very well, and that he has both interested, inspired and instructed his pupils, but he does not know whether or not he has done that unless he sets them some form of examination test. I remember that after I thought I had been teaching certain subjects very successfully often when I set the examination test I found that the pupils did very badly and I had to adopt fresh methods of teaching those subjects which would have better results.
Then, again, examinations are also an incentive. If all teachers had first-class brains and all pupils were very intelligent and industrious there might be no need for examinations, but they are a spur to effort. Boys and girls try to do well in an examination even if nothing very much depends on the result. Schools would be lacking in incentive if no examinations were set from time to time.

Mr. Speaker: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will draw his remarks to a close if the Parliamentary Secretary is to have an opportunity of replying.

Mr. Morley: Finally, we must have some sort of examination for entry to the grammar school, because although a report is useful it is not enough.

10.56 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Education (Mr. Kenneth Pickthorn): If it is not intrusive for me to join this symposium, the hon. Member for Loughborough (Mr. Follick) spoke

so kindly of me that I should not like not to say something, nor should I like to fail in my gratitude to the hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Morley), who answered the argument so much better than I could.
I am not quite certain which portions of the hon. Member's speech I ought to answer. He appeared to think that my Ministry is directly responsible for all sorts of examinations. As the hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen knows, the Ministry I represent, when there is no one better about, is, in fact, only responsible for a small number of examinations. For instance, the one of which we have been speaking—the 11 plus—is the responsibility of the local education authority. Of course, the Minister has a duty to intervene when the local education authority has been plainly unreasonable, although I think I am right in saying that that duty of intervention reposes on one Section only of the principal Act by way of direction, and has never been used.
All this is very much a matter of suggestion, advice, negotiation, and the climate of opinion than the sort of constituency thing or failure of administration, easily debatable on a half-hour Adjournment. I have the deepest sympathy with what the hon. Gentleman says about the strain of examinations. I was myself a very bad examinee. I believe that it is purely the failure of one's moral character. One does badly because of physical effects—sick headaches and all that. I have the deepest sympathy with him as a teacher, too. So often one's best pupils have not achieved the best result at the right moment.
Nevertheless, it is true that examinations are necessary at quite frequent intervals in life. I do not think that there is any way round it. There must be set examinations, and one cannot disguise the fact. We all know how difficult it is to explain anything to a child and how difficult it is to disguise anything from it. The child is bound to know that he is going to have examinations.
The people who cause that kind of harm to examinations are the people who exaggerate—and I hope I shall not be misquoted by one sentence—the importance of education and all certified educational achievement as a contribution to happiness. There are far too


many people who think that we should have been perfectly happy if we had passed the chartered accountants' examination for example, and that if only our children passed they would be perfectly happy. It is not as easy as that. This is one of the greatest factors in the weakening of France during the last three generations. This development is ahead of ours. The weakening of the whole nation is caused by the fact that children are conscious that their mothers and fathers are agonising whether or not they are failing in the bachot, or whatever it may be.
About that, my Ministry cannot do very much. It can do its best to persuade the world that—I think with respect that in this technical sense this is a question of reports rather than records: the records are the things kept inside the profession—reports ought to be used as much as possible and, therefore. examinations used less. We must do our best to try to persuade parents that they should want their children to be as well educated as possible, because it is only those who can do best with their own intellects who can do best with their own bodies or morals—a man is a whole creature and cannot be broken up.
Very often one thinks, "I owe everything to the fact that I passed an examination at 13 "as, indeed, I personally did. But, who knows, if I had not passed, I might have had a far more glorious career doing something else, or perhaps a far less glorious career. Who knows? I do not. One must do one's best not to let people think that human happiness all turns upon it. I am certain that the Ministry, so far as it has any direct contact, Her Majesty's inspectors and all teachers, certainly all teachers

who are at all influenced by the Ministry in this respect, take that line.
I do not think that it is helpful to count up suicides and attribute them to examinations. Suicide is a most terrible crime and misfortune wherever it occurs, not so much to the immediate victim as to everybody around the immediate victim, and what the reason was in any special case, with the possible exception of Judas Iscariot, is more than I should care to be dogmatic about. If the victim is a schoolboy or an undergraduate, it is sometimes said that it must be because of an examination; but it should not be too easily assumed that that was always the reason nor, if it were, that that was necessarily an argument against examinations.
There is one thing in favour of examinations, though I am the last to be a champion of them. This is the counterpart of the suicide argument. Once you are a fairly good batsman, once you are a more than ordinary county batsman, what matters most in deciding whether you shall play for England or not is not whether you are a slightly better or worse batsman than your competitor. but whether you are the sort of batsman who is likely to do better on the last day of a Test match than your norm or whether you are the sort of batsman who is not. To some extent what is called the set examination, the climacteric examination, does test that quality.

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'Clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at Three Minutes past Eleven o'Clock.